Skip to main content

tv   BOS Land Use Committee 72715  SFGTV  August 14, 2015 11:00am-3:31pm PDT

11:00 am
enjoy all types of music. latins also, country and western. it is a great way to exercise while having lots of fun. seniors learn basic moves and practice a variety of routines. improve your posture, balance, and flexibility. it is easy. get up on your feet and step to the beat. senior dance class is from sf rec and park. a great way to get out and play. >> for more information, >> athlete >> ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and welcome.
11:01 am
this is the regular meet of the land use and transportation committee. i am supervisor malia cohen, chair of this committee and to my right is vice-chair wiener and supervisor kim. we're joined by supervisor mark farrell, who will discuss one of the items on the agenda. just a point of housekeeping, first of all, we need to keep our voices down. i want to recognize that we have an overflow room in the north light court. if anyone has who is in this chamber, who does not have a seat, please go to north light court. also just want to recognize that we have translation for folks that need translation, both in english -- excuse me, chinese, as well as spanish. our clerk is ms. andrea ausberry and want to recognize the talented folks at sfgovtv,
11:02 am
jesse larson and leo, who will be broadcasting this committee on sfgovtv. thank you very much. madame clerk, any announcements for us today. >> yes, please science all electronic devices and submit all speaker cards to the clerk. items acted upon today may be appear on the [speaker not board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise state >> ladies and gentlemen, please turn your cell phones off or on "vibrate." item 1 is a motion amending the mallive code for the surplus city property. >> colleagues, this item was continued from our recessed meeting last wednesday because of amendments made by the committee. if there are no other comments from the committee members would i i would like to take public comment on item 1. so let's go ahead and open up.
11:03 am
we'll start with public comment. please line up to this podium right here.a courtesy reminder, everyone will have two minutes to speak. will you hear a soft bell, indicating that you have 30 seconds left in your 2-minute allotment. mr. bowman, the floor is yours >> thank you very much, madame chair and committee members. chris bowman, this is my third hearing on the surplus public lands ordinance. i would make a request to the committee, that if you should go forward and you have six vote and you replace the other measure that is the place-setter. that you put the original, the complete current ordinance, basically sections 1-14 and then you make the amendments to that. so that the voters can see what the amendments are within the context of the entire chapter.
11:04 am
which is 23a. there are a number of sections including the advisory committee and surplus housing that are not included within the chapter, and i think that for truth and to the voters that you need to have it in there. the other thing i'm not concern, if the committee is aware, that the times for implementing the new list, the surplus property has been delayed by eight months. so the implementation would begin on november 1st of 1916. because it says november 1st. the election is november 3rd. so it's going to be another year afterwards. and everything else is basically delayed by basically seven to eight months. i have 30 seconds left. also, there is other problems that i have with the area of
11:05 am
the priorities. in several sections say the priority is for homeless housing. and for people who are -- families who are in overcrowded conditions, but on the other hand, you stated the priority will be for affordable housing going up to 120% of the ami. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon supervisors, commissioners, christoph, president of the island residents association. i'm not 100% positive that we are part of your surplus housing process. but i wanted to raise the concern that island residents are being evicted. >> i'm sorry, sir, could you please turn your cell phones off. all cell phones must be off. i will ask the sheriff to
11:06 am
escort you out if your phone goes out. weaver trying to conduct business here. would you please reset the gentleman's clock. >> appreciate it, on yerba buena island you are well aware that we're currently being evicted, which you have been made of ware of a long time ago us to move to treasure island and the concern that i'm expressing today that me and my current residents have the great concern we will not be able to move back to what is our community on yerba buena island. personally i have lived there over 16 years and some of you have heard me speak here several times before, the grave concern that we have now is that the public land, yerba buena land is slated to be developed for prime and high-priced real estate. we kind ofly ask your consideration to leave behind a few properties, a few lots for current residents to move back into what has become again our community where we have raised
11:07 am
our families over the past up to 16 years. some of us have paid up to half a million dollars in rent there and the way it looks now, the proposal for the redevelopment does not include any kind of -- should i say considerations for current residents? i humbly submit for your request, for your consideration, my request to have these residents be able to move back on to yerba buena island on to properties that we can actually afford. the way it looks now that the properties slated for development is skyrocketing and none of the residents currently living there will be able to afford up to $2,000 a square foot and we kindly ask your consideration to pressure and ask the developers to make a few a few unit as valuable for those living there and paying rent on-time over the last 16 years. thank you very much. >> thank you.
11:08 am
is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on item no. 1? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed at this time. [ gavel ] >> colleagues may i have a motion to send this item forward as a committee report with a positive recommendation tomorrow's full board meeting. supervisor kim, i'm sorry you wanted to make a few remarks. >> actually i was going to make the motion to move this forward with positive recommendation, but i want to thank my colleagues on the land use committee, supervisor cohen and supervisor wiener for joining as co-authors for the ordinance that will prioritize the building of affordable housing on lands and properties that are owned by the city, but doesn't fulfill a distinct city use and also want to recognize supervisor avalos, who is a co-sponsor as well. i would like to make the notion move this forwards a committee report with positive recommendation. >> thank you. seeing that there is no objection, without objection this motion passesment [ gavel ]
11:09 am
madame clerk, could you please call item no. 2. >> item no. 2 is an ordinance amending the public works code to require contractor parking plan [#*-689/] thank you very much. last year both supervisor farrell and i began working on similar legislation to address conflicts and concerns that neighbors were having with a significant amount of construction, parking being taken up in their neighborhoods. we have since merged two pieces of legislation to create a piece that you are going to be considering today. this ordinance responds to numerous complaints. i have received over the last year from residents who are living with several construction sites all around them. by requiring a contractor to develop a construction parking plan, we will be encouraging them to think creatively about how to minimize the parking impacts on the neighborhood. additionally, there will be a document that residents can use
11:10 am
to help hold contractors accountability if they are taking up more space than they need or if they have expected or if they have expected the amount of time that they are permitted to take up in parking spaces. the southeastern neighborhoods are bearing the brunt of the growth in san francisco and one thing that is true that we all share san francisco's limited parking resources. and so i believe that this legislation really does a good job of striking the right balance between facilitating important housing construction in our city, but also requiring contractors to be more thoughtful about how their projects impact the neighborhoods. the i'm going now turn over to supervisor farrell to see if he
11:11 am
has any opening remarks >> thank you, chair cohen and thank you for your partnership on this matter. colleagues it's no surprise that all of the construction happening in our city is having a significant impact on the quality of life in our city. i hear complaints on a daily basis from residents frustrated by the scarce parking resources taken by construction parking permits in our neighborhoods. [tpr-ufrt/]ion also mounts when permanent spaces can sit empt empty for days at a time and i know everybody has experience with that on their own city blocks. over 250 permits are obtained every week. i do believe that wes a city can be a lot more prohabitive in leting our residents know about the impacts that are going to happen in their neighborhoods. so given these frustrations, i teamed up with chair cohen and was joined by
11:12 am
co-sponsors wiener and breed to mandate construction permit plans as a condition to receiving any temporary street space occupancy permit for construction work that requests either more that one parking space over the course of 3-4 months -- excuse me, three or four months. the legislation mandates and is they it's one of the key things that i heard from my residents is that permitted on-street parking spots not used by 4:00 p.m. will return back to the general public. frustration that i heard people returning home at work from 5-7 p.m. timeframe and those not being able to use the spaces when they are vacant all day and clearly not used in the evenings. so it makes submission of parking plans. the proponents of the parking plan include the following: the number of parking spaces and rational, the average number of employees anticipated to be on-site each day. the timing and fadesing of the
11:13 am
project, and the requirement of an update from the contractor at a midpoint of the project to notify the department of any expected changes. whether it's possibly feasible to use opportunity for carpooling or other off-site parking arangement suches as nearby garbages and that on-street parking is valuable to the general public by 4:00 p.m. if the space has gob unused. and other information effect that is deemed valuable for understanding the impact of the project only the neighborhood or neighborhood parking supply. and since the introduction of this legislation supervisor christensen was also engaged with us on this the issue, given the impact she was seen in district and i will let her explain the key components that she fought for. i believe it's a simp, straight forward piece of legislationings that will have positive impacts throughout all of our neighborhoods and residents. my office worked with dpw, sfmta to solicit their feedback and i want to thank them for their involvement and
11:14 am
engagement and in front of us is a package that both departments are in agreement with and supportive of and i believe that representatives from both departments are here to answer any questions. requiring this construction parking plan will help our residents and our city get a better grip on the impact of on-street parking street losses during the construction project hours for neighborhoods and will help to free up much-needed additional spaces for residents. i think forward to the discussion on the committee and hopefully for everyone's support. >> thank you, supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell [kph-epbgs/]ed mentioned that dpw staff is here and in the interest of time i have asked that they refrain from making a representation. supervisor christensen followed by supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madame chair. everybody crossing our city by cars and parking transit and even walking have been impacted by the construction. we sympathize with those who are building and repairing our city.
11:15 am
we're not trying to impede their efforts or to unfairly burden them. but this legislation and the amendments that i have proposed recognizes that one, the scarcity of on-street parking in our city. and secondly, the impact that impeded access has for those with limited mobility, for garbage collection and other deliveries, and that this obstruction comes at a price. i've asked supervisors farrell and cohen, to whom i'm grateful for introducing this legislation, to include commercial districts in the legislation. because that construction is sometimes as or more impactful than that in residential plus the commercial construction often tends to spill over into our residential areas. and the amendment puts a fairer price on the valuable street parking. and also helps cover the cost of administrating the program, realizing this is going to require some added effort. so
11:16 am
again, supervisors farrell and cohen, thank you for doing this and i would hope for approval today. >> thank you very much. supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i also want to thank my colleagues for taking the lead on this legislation, which is long overdue. you know, when you don't have a lots of construction activity going on, can you get away with a little bit of loosy goosy rules around parking being taken up with construction projects, but given the level of construction that we're seeing in the city right now, i think we have to be a lot smarter how we allocate these spots. we are in this time in san francisco with the congestion in the city and the competition for parking, it's getting harder and harder for people to park. we have to make the most efficient use of the parking spaces that we have. and this will help us to do that. we have seen some real abuses. i have one particular location in my district where there has been a huge dumpster taking up
11:17 am
multiple parking spots on and off for years. so it ties in with some of the never-ending construction projects that we see. if you want to have a never-ending construction project, we can have a conversation about that, but you should not be taking up parking spot because you can't get it together to finish your construction project. so this is good legislation and i look forward to moving it out of committee. >> thank you very much. let's take public comment ot this time for item no. 2. i have one speaker card, mr. don immins. >> thank you. well, the members of the board of supervisors have covered most of the issues i was going to mention. as a resident and board member -- i'm here to represent the feelings of our group. and we support this legislation
11:18 am
whole-heartedly. having watched some of these construction projects go on for 2-4 years, and have two or three on a block is highly disruptive as you all have mentioned to the residents, and the people with the legitimate parking permits that they paid for. a lot of these permits are used basically for commuter parker for the workers. i think the legitimate use is for materials and delivers of the parking permits and with the commuter parking taking up the parking spots that are permitted, then the delivery trucks just double-park and further disrupt and exacerbate the situation. that's very common to see concrete trucks, delivery trucks from lumber companies, plumbing and so forth that have
11:19 am
to double-park to get their space. and then that is when they are being used and a lot of times as you mentioned 6:00 on a saturday afternoon they are not being used for construction. so another issue is many of these parking permit signs are not taken down on a timely basis after they have been expired and therefore, they are not being used for construction and they are not being used for residential parking. so i will just summarize by saying that i heartily support the passage of this legislation. thank you. >> thank you very much. we appreciate that support. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak at this time on item 2? seeing none, public comment is going to be closed. [ gavel ] colleagues, i would like to move that we forward this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> would i like to second that and i would like to add my name
11:20 am
as co-sponsor and thank the sponsors for their wock on work on this. >> thank you, supervisor kim. glad you are joining us. without objection that motion passes. thank you. thank you, supervisor farrell. madame clerk, could you call items3 and 4 together. >> yes, item 3 is an ordinance amending the planning and administrative codes for construction of accessory dwelling unitss in district 3 and item no. 4 is an ordinance amending the planning and administrative codes to allow construction of accessory dwelling units in district 8. >> thank you so much. supervisor wiener and supervisor christensen are the authors the item and i would like to off them a moment to offer opening remarks >> thank you very much, madame chair. i won't repeat the opening remarks that i provided last week. this is important legislation that expands on the castro
11:21 am
in-law legislation and seismic in-law legislation that i authored last year and earlier this year and i want to thank supervisor christensen for expanding the legislation to her district. the legislationion i'm offering expands this to all district 8. in-law units are a key part of our overall solution in terms of having more housing in san francisco to meet the needs of our growing city. in-law units are the most affordable types of non-subsidized housing and as we look for a lot of different ways of addressing our housing crisis, in-law units are certainly one piece of the puzzle. this is modest, yet important legislation that will create more housing, that will create new rent-controlled units. there is convention wisdom it's impossible to create new rent-control units that you can only lose them. this legislation demonstrates that you can add new rent controlled units and it will do
11:22 am
so in districts 3 and 8. colleagues i ask for your support. i know we have had some amendments last week that i did not support and i hope thatquial we'll have additional discussion around those amendments today. we need to make sure what happens is that people actually build those units. if you just have a law that sits there and no one is building, than that is a problem. thank you, colleagues. >> supervisor christensen, any comments that you would like to make? >> i'm grateful to supervisor wiener for his leadership on this issue and happy to add district 3 to the districts that would consider this program. we have been stuck in district 3 how to respond to the housing crisis. we have a lot of people in our neighborhoods, seniors, people with limited mobility, especially who find our hills and stairs difficult. the fact that the allowing of
11:23 am
these auddus will, as supervisor wiener said, add rent-controlled housing to the district. the fact that the addition of housing would be dispersed, which means rather than single high-rises we would be spreading out these additions across the neighborhood. dear to my heart, the fact that many of these units are likely to be accessible, on or near the ground floor, where seniors and those with limited mobility would find them easier to access. i think a district made of wonderful neighborhoods with character, to be able to add housing and still preserve the exterior appearance of our buildings is really valuable. we have been talking a lot the board of supervisors about our housing crisis. we have property owners currently that are considering adding bedrooms to existing units in spaces that could be entire rentable apartments., if only the code did not currently prohibit it. so we do feel some sense of urgency in moving
11:24 am
this forward and we're working in my office not only to allow this to happen, but to incentivize it where appropriate with assurances has it all of the regular building code and regulations in place will apply to these units and hopefully give us a way to move forward in a very measureded and reviewed fashion. colleagues, i appreciate your effort. >> thank you, supervisor christensen. >> colleagues after our last meet, we received additional advice from the city attorney and i would like to give deputy city attorney jon givner. >> last week the committee made several amendments. one of them was to prohibit future subdivisions that would allow accessory dwelling units or in-laws to be sold or
11:25 am
financed separately from the existing unit. you made that amendment and continued the item, so that the planning commission could review it. what is before you today is legislation with two additional amendments that you made last week. those amendments would prohibit short-term rentals in these new accessory dwelling units under this chapter of code and would also prohibit anyone from creating a new accessory dwelling unit if there was an ellis act eviction in the previous ten years in the building. the short-term rental prohibition and ellis act prohibition would include those in district 3 and those in district 8 as supervisors christensen and wiener mentioned and also those under the seismic program that supervisor wiener mentioned.
11:26 am
the planning commission did not have an opportunity when it considered these pieces of legislation earlier this month to look at the possibility of restricting the seismic program. and so our advice is that if the committee would like to restrict the seismic program by not allowing short-term rentals in the in-law accessory dwelling unit or not allowing new accessory dwelling unit where there was an ellis act eviction, you should refer that amendment back to the planning commission. that leaves you with a number of options that you could move forward with today, including sending on to the full board a version of the legislation that restricts the district 3 and district 8 in-laws. so that they can't have short-term rental or ellis act evictions or you could send the entire item back to planning. you could strip out the
11:27 am
short-term analysis out of legislation and send that to the full board, but the one thing you can't do is send to the full board an ordinance that restricts the seismic program in-laws. >> thank you, mr. givner, that was a mouthful, but we appreciate you for that. i want to take a couple of minutes to share a thought process. i have taken a look at the short-term rental issue and while i have concern that these units will be constructed solely for the purpose of utilizing the short-term rental, which wouldn't help the housing needs in districts 3 and 8. i don't believe that we have enough information at this point to ban them entirely. i would like to propose that we duplicate this file again and send the version to planning which requires additional hearings and continues the ban on short-term rentals and ellis
11:28 am
act evictions for accessory dwelling units in the area. on the duplicate file i have circulated some amendments that requires the planning department to monitor both the affordability of these units, but also the use of short-term rentals in these units. thank you. this proposal also includes a requirement that an application, that an applicant looking to build in-law units under this legislation disclose whether they intend to use or authorize the unit for short-term rentals. so the planning department knows from the outset if the unit is possibly going to be used for short-term rental and can flag for monitor and possible enforcement in the future. so it's my hope that this data will allow us to see how many
11:29 am
of these rentals are being built? and whether or not short-term rental usage is pervasive? and once we have this data, i believe it will give us a more accurate picture and allow us to address any issues in a very specific and targeted way. i'm open to including the ellis act provision in a future ordinance that comes before us, but based on additional cautionary advice we received from the city attorney, i think it needs some refinement, which we can accomplish when it's heard again in the planning commission. supervisor wiener. >> >> thank you very much, madame chair and thank you for these amendments. just for clarification, my understanding as the chair is proposing, what we would send out of committee today would be what originally came to committee last monday, with one change, a monitoring requirement for short-term
11:30 am
rentals. that would, if the committee chooses to do, so move out of committee, and then the ellis act provision and the short-term rental provision in terms of the restrictions would be referred to the planning commission to join the condo conversion amendment there. and so i just want to make sure that my understanding is accurate. >> yes, supervisor wiener, your understanding is correct and it's complicated. thank you for reiterating it. >> i very much appreciate that and i will certainly support that change. and also to clarify something that i said in opening remarks in terms of the amendments last week, i did support the ellis act amendment. but not the other two amendments. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim. >> thank you. i think i'm still -- because we're muddling through a lot. so there were three amendments that were introduced last week.
11:31 am
and so there is still support on a duplicated file for the ellis act eviction in a building where there is an ellis act eviction, that there will be a prohibition of accessory dwelling unit if there was one over last ten years and that will be moving forward in a duplicative file to the planning commission to consider. okay. so that amendment will stand. the second amendment that i introduced was a prohibition of short-term rentals in accessory dwelling units. that was brought forward back to committee. but now is being -- that the city attorney advised us now it should go back to the planning commission. if it moves beyond district 3 and 8, but impacts the whole seismic program. what i had recommended to the city attorney over the weekend is that we limit the restriction to district 3 and 8. and that we send back to planning commission a prohibition of short-term rentals on the seismic program
11:32 am
for them to consider and for us to get feedback on. so i just want to clarify with supervisor cohen what piece of that we're moving forward with now? both back to planning commission, and to the full board tomorrow? so on the short-term -- it's a lot. on the short-term rental prohibition, what i had asked the city attorney to draft is that we limit the amendment to just districts 3 and 8, and move that forward to the full board tomorrow. and that we also on the duplicative file move forward a prohibition on short-term rentals to the planning commission, impacting the entire seismic program. so we can get feedback from the planning commission on that piece. and that would move through the process. so i guess my clarifying question to supervisor cohen, will the monitoring piece move forward with the prohibition piece to the planning
11:33 am
commission for them to consider before it comes back to land use? >> certainly you are free to make the motion to do so. i want to recognize jon givner to opine. >> sure. deputy city attorney jon givner. supervisor cohen's amendment would take one version of the legislation that has the ellis act prohibition, and the short-term rental prohibition and then would send it all back to planning. all of that -- >> with the monitoring piece. >> the monitoring piece is separate. so to take the ellis act and short-term rental prohibition, applying to all-accessry dwelling units and sending back to plan for review and the two pieces of legislation still in committee, allowing accessory dwelling units in districts 3 and 8, supervisor cohen's amendment would require planning to track data regarding how many short-term -- how much
11:34 am
short-term rental use there is and require applicants -- >> and the piece on the subdivision that was the third amendment. >> has already gone back to planning. so planning would under -- if supervisor cohen's motion passes, planning will in the next 90 days have the opportunity to review the subdivision, the ellis act and the short-term rental prohibition. >> all three amendments will go to the planning commission and the one amendment that will move forward to the full board tomorrow is this amendment before us today on the monitoring piece. >> exactly. >> i'm happy to support that as with. >> thank you very much. supervisor wiener. >> okay. just to be clear, so in terms of what moves out of committee today, there would be no prohibition on short-term rental until any adus and there would be a monitoring requirement for all of them? >> yes. >> that is right. the one additional piece is that we would require
11:35 am
applicants for -- creating -- adus to state on their applicant if they intend those in the units >> thank you. >> all right. colleagues, let's go ahead and dig into public comment. ladies and gentlemen, i have actually one comment card- here is a few more. mr. bob pool, you are up first. just as a reminder, if you would like to speak on items 3 or 4, please just line up and queue up to the far side of the chamber, and we can go as quickly as possible for public comment. mr. pool, are you here? okay i will gos to the next person mr. pool, join us when you can
11:36 am
keith freedman. [ reading speakers' names ] >> thank you. my name is keith freedman, a teacher at city college and renter in supervisor wiener's district. >> pull the mic closer to your mouth, so we can hear you. >> is that better? >> yes. >> thank you. one of my concerns about adding an amendment to the str restrictions affects renters. most of the adus will be used for family use or used as rental units. the tenants will not have the option in the future should they need to to veil avail themselves of the additional income to make sure that rent is paid. most landlord's goals is to make sure their rents are paid and it's much better for them to allow a tenant to make extra on weekends when they go away this. will affect future
11:37 am
tenants more so that than the actual property owners and to take that into consideration when considering the amendments. thank you. >> thank you very much, next speaker. >> san francisco housing action coalition and trying to keep up with amendments as i was sitting downstairs and watching the tv. we do not support the original amendments introduced a week ago. our basic stance in-law units have been veted in san francisco for decades. and adding more restrictions to get them built will only make it more likely that they are not built legally and will be built illegally like they have for decades. we have thousands of illegal in-law units and we have an opportunity to create new in-law units legally. so it's a little confusing why a year-ago we supported
11:38 am
legislation for the castro district and now we want to change it when it's expanded to different neighborhoods. sounds like what you came up here with today is better and hoping that it moves forward to the full board and is approved there. we don't want to make it harder to build these homes. they are naturally more affordable. they don't require thousands of dollars of subsidy and they are cheaper to build and serve a variety of household types and can be expanded throughout the whole city without impacting neighborhood character. thank you for your time. >> supervisor wein. wiener, thank you. next speaker, please. >> lee anderson, district 8. on the in-law legislation it looks like it's still very difficult to build an in-law and have it comply with current code vis-a-vis fire code and things like that. even though you guys -- you want to have additional housing here, but you are not providing us a way to actually build it
11:39 am
that will actually make sense for us. one of the things that we have is a fire code that if we add an additional unit, an in-law unit we have to sprinkler the whole building -- no? you are telling me no? so if it's three-levels i don't have to sprinkler it and can i quote you on that supervisor? >> unfortunately it's public comment, no back and forth, but you can come to supervisor wiener's office and one of his aides can answer the question for you. next speaker. are you stan hayes. >> no, i'm dooned. >> >> donald. >> i just want to commend both supervisor christensen and supervisor wiener for your neighborhood advocacy and also thinking of the individuals who have been displaced, especially the disabled, seniors and our veterans as well as hiv positive patients. i'm supportive of the
11:40 am
legislation as it stands. any understand supervisor kim's concerns about the ellis act and such, but we're in a housing crisis at the moment, right now. and we're running out of time. these people need to be taken care of. it takes time to build the additional units through the planning commission. and if we maintain the original context of this adu legislation, and then going forward after we receive more data, more information, and as the process evolves, we can go ahead and take care of those other pieces that supervisor kim is concerned about. also, too, the legislation covers the ellis act already and vacation rentals as well. so i completely support the original legislation and i hope it moves forward to the board of supervisors tomorrow. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker,
11:41 am
please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, thank you for the opportunity to speak, kate evans, homeowner in district , 8 team wiener and also registered team host and speaking to you today on behalf of the home-share san francisco democratic club. it's our club's position to support affordable housing in san francisco. so we support the legislation as it was originally written. however, we do take issue with the amendment to restrict short-term rentals for two reasons. first of all, accessory dwelling units will be independent units. as such, they will be restricted already from the current law from conducting short-term rentals via the owner of the property. so really having a restriction on short-term rentals for the new adus that become legal is only
11:42 am
going to affect the tenant who lives in that unit, who may want to rent it out for the weekend in order to make ends meet. so that is really the group of people that would be affected by this amendment and for that reason we disagree with it. but thank you very much for your efforts to increase housing and especially rent-controlled housing. we believe it's important to get as much people, especially those with disability and lower incomes into safe housing into the city that they can afford. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is mary sorenson and let's talk about the elephant in the room. the fact that every speaker has talked about seniors, disability, hiv patients, none of these people are going to be renting these in-law units because they are all going to
11:43 am
be short-term rentals. and then let's talk about the fact that it's going to be when they go to apply for this, they have to say whether they are going to be rented or they are going to be short-term rentals. let's see, what is the building owner going to say? of course, i'm going rent it, but in reality, there is no way to check if he is actually going to do short-term rentals. so once again, we have toothless system set up. everybody talks about affordable housing, affordable housing, housing crisis, but the fact is all you are doing is working around it and assuring us that the only people that will be able to live in san francisco are the tourists and the building owners, and that does not make a city. the ellis act should be upheld and there should be a ban on short-term rentals in these
11:44 am
in-law units. you give too much lip service to disabled, seniors, other people and then you do nothing about it. it thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> i'm, in fact, stan hayes and thank for letting peme me speak and president of the telegraph dwellers and we have supported the amendments that were brought to the original legislation. we hope that will you continue to consider them favorable as they move through the planning commission and back to you. the ellis act prohibition, the short-term rental restriction and the monitoring program all very good ideas. for 16 years i was a planning commissioner in a town in marin county and in all of that time we had a second-unit ordinance and it worked. we required public notice to enable neighborhood input and
11:45 am
finding that the neighborhood wouldn't be harmed. and we monitored our successes and failures to find out what we were doing right and what we were doing wrong and to make it better? and we believe that is something that is needed here. check and balances are needed to avoid adus that overwhelm a neighborhood. especially in areas with particularly limited parking. public notice and consultation are needed to ensure neighborhood support as is required for secondary units by policy 1.5 of the housing element. and monitoring is needed to know how well the ordinance is working and to fix it when and if it isn't. we urge and the full board to adopt the ellis act prohibition, the short-term restriction, and monitoring program, and to consider further amendments also, and because this legislation amounts to a de facto rezoning, please don't short-circuit the
11:46 am
usual community outreach process. we ask you to further consider public consultation before adopting this legislation. we urge you to bring back a favorable vote on the amendments that have been brought forward now and i hope will be added at the board of supervisors tomorrow. thank you. >> thank you very much. we have got a few more speaker cards. [ reading speakers' names ] >> my name is fran taylor and my speaker card went up in the wrong pile. i meant to speak on supervisor kim's agenda 7, 8 and 9. so my fault if you could put it back -- not at the bottom, i was here early. >> thank you, fran. we'll see you in a little bit. next speakers. if you want to speak on items 3
11:47 am
and 4 just line up and come up. >> hi. my name is lara clark and i'm here with a prohousing organization, grow sf. i think you have had a pretty thorough conversation about amendments and about readdressing some of the items brought up, especially around ellis act evictions. think the current proposed legislation that you are wanting to pass sounds great. my only critique, you are not passing it citywide. we need housing and we need it urgently and we need it now and in-law units are a great way to do that with low-impacts. it's a great way to increase housing for low-income people and we need it everywhere, now, urgently. so that is the only critique that i have of what you have proposed. researching on whether or not airbnb is going to be used by these in-law units i think is
11:48 am
perfectly reasonable. we're poised to regulate airbnb and short-term rentals throughout the city. i think doing it in a universal fashion is a great idea. i hope you guys can move quickly on this issue, because we already know that in-law units work. so please push this forward quickly. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> good afternoon, supervisors, fernando with the council of community housing organizations. i wanted to thank you for bringing this forward and want to express our support for the various amendments that have been brought forward. i want to appreciate that supervisor wiener, who we often disagree on items is supportive of the prohibition on ellis acts. i think that makes a lot of sense, but so does the question about around short-term rentals? i think it's important as we're creating this as so many speakers have talked about, it's really about creating housing. we have heard a lot about these
11:49 am
adus being naturally affordable housing. i have my handy computer and like i did last week i looked up craigslist and did a search for "in-laws," and what to share with naturally affordable in-laws go for. i didn't see any in district 3 or 8. one bedroom, $4,000 inner richmond. one bedroom, $3500. marina one bedroom, bernal heights. $3,000. two bedroom excelsior out irmission, $900. one bedroom, mission potrero hill, with parking, $2800 and
11:50 am
over time they create a sense of affordability within the neighborhoods and allow the position individuals who can afford the $3,000 in-laws to stay in the neighborhood. i think it's very important for the legislation with the short-term rental prohibition to stay as-is. and one thing, if anybody has seen a lease in the last ten years, you will see that almost every lease prohibits tenants -- [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] >> now i know you know the rules about applause. thank you. fingers folks, no applause. madame, the podium is yours >> good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. i really have only one question to everyone in this room, and
11:51 am
everyone who has spoken in opposition to the prohibition, specifically on short-term rentals, given the possibility -- given that short-term rentals are highly, highly profitable, if many cases if they are allowed in these adus and i fully support the concept , they are going to crowd out housing and defeat the purpose of the legislation, why should the city -- why should the representatives of the voters of the san francisco go forward with this legislation at all? i urge you to support this particular amendment. thank you. >> thank you. did ross speak? how about kate evans? thank you. robert and
11:52 am
[speaker not understood] [ reading speakers' names ] >> yes on adus. i'm really looking forward to this. this has been interesting, because i think it's a good example of something that happens too often, fight over to make unit and who will wind up using them is happening at the same time. i think we would be any better position to take for granted to make the units and then fight over who uses them later. because making the units is a great thing. we'll fight over who uses them at the end of the summer. while i'm up here, also, yes, on vacancy controls, so i don't have to stay all afternoon. that seems like another
11:53 am
no-brainer to protect people from eviction where we get adus and also vacancy controls. thanks. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi, thank you. my name is tim mccormick with san francisco bay area renters federation and a company that develops super low-cost building alternative structures that could be used in situations like this and i want to voice my strong support for moving forward as broadly and quickly as possible with adus. i spent some of my time in seattle and per portland and they are moving forward with citywide accessory dwellings. i have seen it happening and being embraced in the city. so i think we can look at various concerns that might arise. we create a unit, it might
11:54 am
possibly be used for str. it's probably the only way i could live right now in san francisco. so it's that urgent. there are people -- it will shape their life and allow them to be in the city or not be in the city. the key to having accessory dwellings happened broadly is to streamline the process and make it into the an embattled highly-restricted contested thing. in portland they created a kit like santa cruz and the number of adus went unby a factor of ten. thank you for your work on this. bye. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi mike, 25-year resident of district 3 in north beach, where i can tell you there are lots of backyards in north
11:55 am
beach that you can't see and lots of people who want to build in-law unit or adus. the real question is one of incentives. like the other two speakers, i think we really need to weigh incentives. we should be making this easier for people, not harder. if there are abuses that come up, we can regulate those later. in addition, we should also talk about if you guys want to really pass something, like item 7, vacancy control, rent freezes on vacancies. those are great goals. we should have those, but they will be able the more harder to enact and get support for, if you are constantly taking any chance to throttle before making these units available. please, just get it over with already and let us build the units. thanks. >> thank you, next speaker. >> after the last speaker i
11:56 am
would like to call up ed carter. mica [ reading speakers' names ] >> hello my name is scott, and you can skip my card if it's called later. i greatly appreciate the awareness that ellis act evictions and short-term rentals are having a tremendous impact currently on our housing accessibility, particularly ones designed for affordability. i greatly appreciate that you are putting controls in place ahead of time, knowing this will be an issue later. thank you very much for looking at accessory dwelling units a viable and soon to be legalized
11:57 am
housing. people have been converting garages and non-traditional structures into housing probably since the time that housing existed. if our goal is to legalize these spaces and preserve affordability, these restrictions are greatly beneficial to being used as full-time housing for residents of san francisco. artists living in warehouses have been something very much in the same legal gray area. there is currently no consideration under this you area. it would be interesting to see if this goes forward. thank you for the time on this subject. >> thank you very much. if you heard your name called, please come up. if you are in the north light court, and you heard your name
11:58 am
called for public comment. laura clark and donald. we'll give a couple of minutes for the folks in the north light court to come up. mike edge, are you on your way? sonya? she spoke already? okay. all right. well, seeing there are no other public comment, public comment will be closed for items 3 and 4 at this time. [ gavel ] colleagues, supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madame chair. so i would -- i don't know if the chair intends to make her own motion or would like someone else to. >> can you >> you can make the motion. >> okay. i can make it.
11:59 am
>> why don't you make it. >> colleagues what i would like to do is make a motion to duplicate the files both for items 3 and items 4 and continue the file with the ellis act and short-term rental amendments, so that our clerk can refer them back to the planning department as recommended by our city attorney. did you get that madame clerk? all right. i would also like to make a motion to amend these duplicative files. again both for items 3 and 4 consistent with the amendments that i have circulated and described. supervisor wiener. >> so it would be the amendments would be made to the files that are remaining in this committee, potentially to be forwarded out, to remove the restrictions and add in the monitoring. >> that is correct. so i have made two motions. is there a second? >> i second the motion. >> thank you. supervisor kim, do you have a question for the city attorney?
12:00 pm
[ inaudible ] >> this is a question again for the city attorney. my understanding there is already a duplicated file that is moving to the planning commission with the prohibition on short-term rentals to the planning commission. >> deputy city attorney, jon givner, a duplicative file with the prohibition on subdivision. what supervisor cohen has not duplicated again for today's meeting. and is proposing to send that duplicated file with the prohibition on short-term rental and ellis act evictions to planning. with the version that remains in committee, she would strike-out all of the short-term rental and ellis act stuff, add in the short-term rental monitoring requirements
12:01 pm
i support that. >> thank you very much. it looks like the motion has been supported unanimously by this committee. this motion passes. [ gavel ] >> madame chair with respects to items 3 and 4, i move that we forward both items as amended to the full board of supervisors as committee reports with a positive recommendation. >> all right. without objection that motion passes [ gavel ] . thank you. >> thank you. >> madame clerk could you please call item no. 5. >> item no. 5 is an ordinance amending the planning code to allow accessory use entertainment in specified bernsomaa districts >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen, supervisor kim is the author of item 5. >> thank you. and this is an amendment to the western soma plan, bringing in accessory entertainment in the
12:02 pm
western soma neighborhood. as the plan moveded forward our residents asked that we move forward with limited light permit to this neighborhood to give it some time, a, for the plan to move forward and b, to see how it worked in other neighborhoods. over the last years, the entertainment commission has seen little complaints and in the few cases there were dispute, they were fairly easily resolved. due to, i think the success of this program and of course because some of our small businesses would like to permit in lighted light permit, including dj, open mic, comedy night, we're moving forward to implement this within the western soma plan. so colleagues, i ask for your support. >> thank you. supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i want to thank supervisor kim for bringing this forward. i know we had a discussion when
12:03 pm
western soma was passed and i think it's great that the program is moving forward successfully. it's a wonderful, wonderful program that allows more music in our city and for us to be more flexible about it and very happy to support it. >> public comment for item 5 is open. any member of the public who would like to speak, please come do so. >> good afternoon, supervisors, diagnose sanchez with the planning department staff. july 16th the planning commission heard the proposed ordinance that amended planning code to allow limited live performance. the planning commission was in support and voted unanimously to adopt a resolution to recommend the proposed ordinance. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. item no. 5, i have got a speaker card for laura clark.
12:04 pm
case lewis. scott cuban. all right, seeing that there are no other speakers in line for item 5, public comment will be closed. [ gavel ] all right. ladies and gentlemen, is there a motion? >> i would like to make a motion to move this with recommendation to the full board. >> thank you, supervisor kim. without objection, that motion passed. [ gavel ] madame clerk, could you please call i. item 6. >> hearing on climate change and green infrastructure program. >> thank you, supervisor wiener is the author of this item and will make a few opening remarks >> thank you, madame chair
12:05 pm
for scheduling this hearing today. we're in the midst of historic district court and it's really difficult even to wrap our head as round the critical need of doing a better job in managing the stormwater that we do have. with another el nino predicted, indeed last year my district flooded ago, despite the fact we were in the middle of a drought. this is a neighborhood along with several others that suffers from repeated flooding. the existing combined sewer system that handles wastewater and stormwater isn't designed to handle even average rain events, let alone massive rain events. withpt impacts of climate change, san francisco and the bay area are forecasted to see fewer, but perhaps more intense
12:06 pm
rain events. this means that while we will see less rain overall and the drought may very well continue, we will get very intense bursts and as a result, we'll see more flooding. in order to handle the stormwater, we can build ever larger pipes at extraordinary expense, or we can handle much of that stormwater by allowing the rain to infiltrate the ground through infrastructure. portland, seattle, new york city and many other cites are building extensive portfolios of green infrastructure to help our rainwater infiltrate the ground. these improvements not only manage stormwater, but also beautify our neighborhoods. so today, colleagues, the public utilities commission will make a presentation to highlight the city's green infrastructure program. what we're currently doing and what is in the
12:07 pm
pipeline and discuss some of the impediments to broader implementation? so i want to call up karen cubic, the wastewater enterprise program director at the san francisco public utilities commission. >> thank you. >> thank you all, thank you, supervisors. actually, today we have a presentation put together to be responsive to the board's request. i'm going to start with sarah. because we're going to talk about our stormwater design guidelines and the work we have done on a routine basis with every permit. so sarah will start and i will follow-up with our larger capital projects that are green. >> thanks, karen. thank you, supervisors for inviting us today to talk about green infrastructure. my name is sarah minnic and i'm pard of the urban watershed program at sfpuc. as karen mentioned we're going talk about program and policis
12:08 pm
before we talk about capital projects. our presentation will start with a defensive of what "green infrastructure" is and our approach and a little bit of what we have learned so far and how to do better in future? just is to quickly set the context for green infrastructure. "green infrastructure" is engineered systems that take advantage of natural processes of soil and plants to slow down and clean stormwater. examples are biretention, rain gardens, rainwater harvesting and permable payment. we do draw an important distinction between just good "greening" versus performance-based infrastructure
12:09 pm
." it helps with flood control, which the supervisor was mentioning. it reduced heat island affects in our city and has the ancillary effect particularly on the west side of recharging groundwater. mitigates carbon pollution and with our current drought situation, it helps us to have more resiliency in the face of drought. so we have kind of a multi-pronged portfolio for the implementation of green infrastructure. we have policies and regulations, as well as programs and projects. and one of our main strategies for getting green infrastructure to be integrated into san francisco's urban fabric sour stormwater management ordinance. this was adopted in 2010 and the threshold for compliance is 5,000 square feet. and this has proven to be a great way to get green infrastructure into san francisco's neighborhoods.
12:10 pm
we have had over 200 projects submit their stormwater control plans, which is very exciting. and as a result of these projects, we will manage over 1700 acres when these projects are complete. and we will remove over 25 million gallons annually from the sewer. this map here shows sort of the spatial distribution of the impacts of the stormwater management ordinance. it allows you to see that indeed, our projects are obviously lining up with where the majority of development is occurring and it's helping us to get green infrastructure into some of san francisco's densest area. in the areas of policies and programs, we tried to do a lot of outreach and education, so that people will know what green infrastructure is and how they can participate? whether it's a private developer, another city department, member of the city family, or community groups.
12:11 pm
so we have how-to manuals for rainwater harvesting and for many kind of green infrastructure, vegetation palate and watershed. one of main ones that we're very proud of is the watershed stewardship grant program. we granted over $1.2 million and have gotten small-scale projects across san francisco's neighborhoods, including into over 25 of our elementary schools. so that gives you a better understanding, i hope, of some of the policies, strategies and program strategies and i'm going turn it over to karen cubic our director of sfip. >> thank you. we have invested in green infrastructure projects, one project in each of our urban
12:12 pm
watersheds. these projects we have four additional ones going into constraction construction and the remaining four will start next year. they are intended to demonstrate green technologies. i'm going talk to you about a few of the different projects that we have. the purpose of doing early implementation projects is that we can demonstrate how effective the technology is. we're intending to build performance-based green infrastructure that will remove stormwater from our system and reduce the burden on our collection system. so that we can avoid situations like excess stormwater flooding. we will be doing post-construction monitoring to see how effectively each of the installations removes stormwater, but secondary objectives of our project include things like public education; our public does not know about green infrastructure. it's not just passive landscaping. this is something that is active and a part of our
12:13 pm
infrastructure. these installations also beautify the neighborhoods and provide traffic-calming. if you have been to cesar chavez, you have seen sidewalks that are narrowered and slow down traffic, but they do require a lot of interaction synergy and coordination to be successful. so i wanted to take you on a little tour of a few of our green infrastructured projects. the first is the wiggle. this is two-phased project. the first phase has been complete. this is in the haight-ashbury district and follows the wiggle bike path and includes bioretention basins and bulb-outs. this is the portion that has been completed already. the bioretention, as well as permeable pavement.
12:14 pm
the next project i want to highlight is at the confluence of mission and valencia. this one is called mission valencia green gateway. here is some information about the costs on the top slide this. is currently out for advertisement. one significant project that is extremely cool and it's the only of its kind is to daylight yosemite creek. this creek has the headwaters which are my mclaren park and that creek water, that historically ran as a creek, all of that clean water gets into our collection system and takes up capacity. so what we're looking at doing is opening that up, exposing that to the surface, collecting it, actually having a cistern that
12:15 pm
collects that water and used for park irrigation. it's a very effective eipp. what we are endeavoring to do is maximize the amount of drainage areas that each of these projects manages. so we're really trying to get as much flow as possible into each of these projects. this is another shot of yosemite creek daylighting. can you can see each of the projects has public benefits. this has a plaza, seating area, incorporating bike safety, pedestrian safety, these are other factors. this is the overall schedule for early implementation project. each project requires a planning phase, design phase. we have environmental review. we have lots of public meetings. because this is different than the work that puc normally does. we work on a lot of gray things and pipes and tunnels and pump stations, things that are below the ground and the public won't see.
12:16 pm
these are changing people's neighborhoods. transforming them for the positive, but we want people to be brought along with us. they involve contractors being out on-site, working on streets and creating disruptions. so we don't want people to be surprised. so this gives you an idea where we are right now in the process. many are wrapping up design, but we'll be in construction on all of them by 2016. it represents 24 million gallons worth of flow that will be removed from the system. what we have learned, we have learned this is a steep learning curve. department of public works has been working with us on the designs. we pull in their landscape folks and structural and hydraulic teams. we have not by the things like this previously. so we have to develop standards and details that were then shared. we had to teach our contractors how to build things and
12:17 pm
subsequently have training on maintenance. so at each step of the way for the implementation of these projects, we have had to bring others along with us. >> if i may -- >> sure. >> it's great to have all of these early projects. i want to really commend the agency for moving forward with them. but what are -- in the end we need to scale-up and have this be much bigger and more extensive to have truly meaning of the impact impacts of capturing rainwater. what is the agency's plan to scale up the projects and extend them to other neighborhoods and what budget has been allocated to make that happen? >> if i could go to the next slide, we're standardizing the guidelines to be shared with
12:18 pm
private contractors, as well as our internal folks. so this isn't the first time we're tackling something. it's going to be a very routine thing. all of our designs have checklists and lessons-learned workshops with our designers and contractors. a lot of training is occurring on design and construction and we have a green infrastructure contractor certification program. so this won't be something new. we won't run into the same challenges that we had, but what we're doing looking to the future is one, we need to monitor how well the installations perform? then we want to have these be repeatable. by having standardized designs this have now become repeatable. >> in terms of budgets, it's great that the process is getting more efficient as it will over time. what kind of budget is the agency allocated? >> well, for phase 1 of the program, it's approximatery $60
12:19 pm
million that has been set up. what we're looking at doing is having a stormwater fee with an associated incentive program to spread out the burden or challenge or opportunity really of building green infrastructure. so we can structure a stormwater way for areas that have impervious surface and use the associated revenue to provide an incentive for public and private owners to be able to transfer parking lots, gray space and green it. so that stormwater stays on-site. i think we have learned through this it's going to take the whole city family work together. because each city agency owns different parts and we need the cooperation of all to make it work of so capital coordination, if there is a big project taken by another
12:20 pm
agency, we have excess stormwater and areas that we want to do a green project. so hopefully with the board's support we could have that be something that happens more holistically as big projects are being planned. >> right. in addition to budget, the other issue that we've -- let me just backup there. so are there going to be additional city-sponsored projects? >> we do have a few other ones. we're working right now on van ness. there is going to be some greening built as the van ness brt and civic center improvements. >> and beyond that? >> proned that beyond that we would look at incentives and getting additional funds authorized. the additional $ 6.9 billion included funds for green infrastructure. i think because of the lessons
12:21 pm
that we have learned and because it's such a big list and does involve so many different city department we're rethinking best way to deliver it. >> right. i will get to that in a second. in terms of what is in the puc's plan. beyond the two projects that you just mentioned, is the puc intending to deliver additional green infrastructure projects as city-sponsored projects? >> we are interested in that, but we're interested more of an incentive-based approached or partnership-based approach. >> with priority private property owners? >> with private and public property owners. >> i'm a little concerned about that. a lot of the infrastructure is city-owned infrastructure and obviously incentives are a good thing to get private property owners to remove concrete and open up the ground is a good thing. i would hope there would be an aggressive public project pipeline as well. >> there will be in addition to -- our most fruitful
12:22 pm
public agencies will be places like recreation and park and the school district and campus-type of situations. so we're approaching them and working closely with them. where a private owner was doing a large -- over 5,000 square feet wan and was going to exceed the requirements that sarah talked about in the guidelines, that do present itself as a potential incentive type of arrangement. we're just getting started in studying the incentive program, but with my want to leverage our public dollars our public dollars. >> i would encourage you to move aggressively on that. the process and the city codes and what we have seen with vision zero implementation, pedestrian safety project and it sounds like what i have heard, it
12:23 pm
might be happening with the green infrastructured projects. you have a bunch of different agencies with overlapping jurisdiction and you end up having a lot of bureaucratic obstacles to getting these projects done in an expeditious and the public utilities commission -- there in terms of the green infrastructure stormwater projects, it seems like we're moving at a slower rate than some other cities. i'm wondering what we can do from an interagency perspective
12:24 pm
we can have everyone working together with a shared goal of getting the projects done? instead of having different departments finding reasons to say no. >> i think we have to continue the interagency coordination. we have been doing that, but you are correct. there has been stumbles. now we'll have implemented each different type of technology. we have got a path. we have got a checklist. we have a routine. we're going to be holding a partnering session with dpw, additionally. because we want them to be a strong partner in this and they have been. they have been our designer. but it is always challenging because you are correct. because other city departments have different priorities and have limited staff. in some cases where we're working with another city agency, we have even set up funds so staff time can be made available. so approvals and progress can be made as quickly as possible. >> okay. i would just comment and let this particular issue go.
12:25 pm
i think the city government struggles when we set a clear priority as a city. whether it's reducing deaths and injuries on our streets through vision zero or trying to reduce the flooding by diverting more stormwater into the ground rather than the sewer system. these are shared city policy goals. and it is just -- as a legislator, when we all -- and i know my colleagues do the same thing. we deliver funding for these projects and we support these projects. strong support from the mayor's office and board of supervisors and often the voters as well. and instead of finding a way to say let's get it done, the shared goal, it's department-by department, even sections within departments, even with one mid-level person who stymies an entire project and i don't think it's acceptable. i'm not blaming you. it's a citywide systematic issue and these green infrastructure projects are so
12:26 pm
important. i don't want to have more flooding on cuyago and i want to encourage the puc to work with the other departments to clear those bureaucratic obstacles >> we will get on it, thank you. >> thank you. >> is that it for your presentation? >> yes. >> my apologies for the distractions in the hallway. >> thank you for your presentation and for your work. madame chair, i think at this time we can move to public comment. >> thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, we're going up public comment for item no. 6, hearing on climate change and green infrastructure program. if you would like to speak, please line up at the podium. remember you have two minutes. is there anyone in the chamber or north light court that would
12:27 pm
like to speak on item no. 6? okay. seeing none, public comment for item 6 is closed at this time. [ gavel ] is there a motion for this item. >> thank you, madame chair for scheduling this today. it's a very important item. i would move this to the call of the chair and it would be my intent to bring it back in six months. >> you said move to the call of the chair? all right, without objection this motion passes unanimously. [ gavel ] please note that supervisor kim is not in the vote. thank you. >> madame clerk, i need to do a reverse course and make a motion to rescind the vote on items 3 and 4 so we can open up public comment and include additional public comment. so i would like to make a motion
12:28 pm
-- seconded by supervisor wiener. [ gavel ] motion passes unanimously. ladies and gentlemen, we're going re-open public comment for items 3 and 4. if there is any member of the public that would like to speak on items 3 and 4 please come to the podium and speak. maria. items 3 and 4 please come up to the podium. thank you. bring them all in. my apologies for missing you the first time. >> that one is fine. >> thanks. i'm theresa and i live in north beach and i'm representing both the north beach committee, as well as senior and disability action where i work. that is to say with the adus adding those in north beach, if the intent truly is to add more
12:29 pm
affordable housing, i support that. but i think the only way we can truly do that is to have these amendments in place that would forbid them ever being used as short-term rental and ellis act eviction in the last ten years, that they also be not allowed to build and also it can't be turned into a condo. so if the intent is to truly add more affordable housing, we have to ensure these things are in place now. because we do know this they have been abused up until now. so let's just be honest, and say, we need to protect what we do have, and see these amendments through. so that we do indeed have additional affordable housing. especially as a interim in-law place would mean that a lot of elderly that i see struggling now getting upstairs or if they
12:30 pm
have wheelchairs, that these would be also units that they could live in and live well. so please pass this with regulation in place to ensure it remains affordable housing for all. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there another speaker that would like to speak on this item? please come up. >> thank you supervisors. my name is tess well-born and we have often heard oh, the horse has left the barn. we can't possibly stop it. that is why we're asking that you put in the amendments that supervisor kim has asked for. we want these accessory units to be permanently rent-controlled. so that there will be a chance at some point in the future, the rents will be low enough that some of our seniors and lower-income residents will be able to live in them. it's really important to do that now. as soon as you get it back from planning, we have got to
12:31 pm
protect them from turning into hotel usages. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. my name is jasmine and we work with some latino families that live in north beach and some of them rely on the in-law units. so i was just seconding what was mentioned here before and supporting the amendment of supervisor kim to put a restriction for those units not be used as rental. otherwise we'll not be solving any housing issue in san francisco, or shortage. it will just make it worse. so i just want to support that. thank you. >> thank you. last call for public comment on items 3 and 4? all right. public comment is closed for items 3 and 4. [ gavel ] i believe we need to take the vote over again.
12:32 pm
supervisor wiener, would you like though make the motion? >> i will move to duplicate the files and make the -- adopt the amendments as previously discussed and acted on by the committee. >> thank you. without objection this motion passes. thank you [ gavel ] . >> i now move to forward items 3 and 4 as amended to the full board of supervisors with positive recommendation as a committee report. >> thank you. without objection, this motion passes. [ gavel ] okay. madame clerk, could you please call the next item, i believe it's item no. 6. >> item no. 7, actually. item no. 7 is a resolution receiving and improving the first bi-annual boundary report of 2014-2015. >> i'm sorry, madame clerk, could you please call 7 and 8
12:33 pm
together. >> sure. item 18 a hearing on -- >> and 9. >> to present findings from the annual housing report. >> i just wanted to make a request through the chair to hear item no. 9 and hear 7 and 8 after, keeping in mind that we have a lot of members of the public here for item no. 9. >> just for the point of clarification, you would like to call item no. 9 out of order? >> yes. >> all right. madame clerk, could you please call item no. 9. >> yes, item no. 19 an ordinance amending the administrative code, amending the arbitration. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you madame chair for calling this item out of order.
12:34 pm
i know that many members of the public are here to speak on the item and many whom have worked on the legislation, but also brought forward their stories. according to the most recent report, the evictions filed with the board. this is a sharp increase of 67% from only five years ago. furthermore we know that the actual number of evictions and displacement is much higher than this number as countless evictions go unreported to the rent board. the five leading causes of eviction in order of frequency are one, breach of lease. two, nuisance. three, owner move-in. four, ellis act and finally 5, illegal use. while there has been a lot of media and policy focus on ellis act evictions the leading cause
12:35 pm
we are seeing are breech of lease and nuisances and they are increasing while an ellis act and move-in are going down thanks in large part to media political attention to all of the organizing that occurred out of this room in san francisco without any change in law has been on the decline. my office has been overwhelmed with requests for assistance by tenants who are being evicted and they are primarily seniors, immigrants and residents with disabilities, with little understanding of their rights to challenge the eviction. there is an immense fear amongst tenants about losing their home and the stability that they can afford, even if they don't have an eviction notice before them. evictions as we have heard over and over again in this chamber produces anxiety and stress when you have no idea where you will be able to live next. there are several stories thatly share and we'll hear
12:36 pm
more today from public comment of the very people we're trying to protect with this legislation, the silvia smith. here is a disabled senior and former u.s. postal worker. since the landlord purchased her building last yeah, she has been harassed by multiple notices, levying ridiculous accusations without evidence. nought landlord is evicted her because her grandsons live with her and she stated "because of this eviction i have become sicker from the stress." other story was another frivolous breach, when tenants in a hotel were served with breach of lease notices for hanging laundry outside of think window. while this is a practice that the tenants engaged in for
12:37 pm
decades, it's a practice that the new landlord decided to enforce and quickly issued eviction notices would you tell us without a time to cure. :many who lived in the building for 20 years and were served with eviction notices. now that the market was doing well and suddenly office space was in demand in mid-market, wanted to correct this illegal use and evict all of these tenants. if this eviction is successful, it will be the largest eviction seen since the 1997 eviction. other examples of harmless and
12:38 pm
curable eviction notices include carrying a bike through a common hallway, painting the bedroom walls three years ago, placing a sticker outside of the tenant's units, storing a stroller in the hallway or noise incident from again two years ago. landlords and property managers are using these types of false evictions to remove long-term tenants from their homes. and the surge over the last five years coincides with an unprecedented rise for rent. they are evicting these long-term tenants. tenants and housing counselors and attorneys have addressed our offices to address this socioeconomic problem impacting the health and stability of our city. eviction 2.0 is a set of important amendments that have been carefully tailored to address the city's eviction crisis and this legislation will do the following one, requires that eviction notices
12:39 pm
including information go out in multiple languages concerning where tenants can get more information about their rights and where to get help. languages will include chinese, spanish, tagalog and russian and make forms that are easy accessed and attached so the tenants understand the notice and no are where to go to help. two, the landlord must provide proof of the allegeded violation. two years ago a senior russian family living in a below-market unit in south beach found the opening of a new park across the street. the mother was in tears because they have had received an eviction notice based on the allegation that the [so-fpbt/] couple was a drug user. she had no idea what recourse she had and was scared becoming homeless. the property management company did not provide any evidence to support their allegation. if she had not come to us and we would not have been able to connect this family to the
12:40 pm
tenderloin housing clinic, we would probably be on the streets today. attorney there was able to negotiate with the property management company. this legislation would mandate that evidence would be required for the alleged violation. three, give tenant a chance to cure. tenants must be given a reasonable amount of time to cure a petty violation. four, make clear that housing that is not authorized residential occupancy such as dwelling units cannot be the sole reason for eviction as it was in 1049 market. 5 allow tenants a chance to add a room writemate withoutmate and finally this codifies state law, which landlord/property
12:41 pm
owner terminate a lease or requires a tenant to temporary relocate for because of owner move-in,ond conversion or remediation work. that tenant or next tenant that moves in can move in at the rent of the departing tenant. this ensures that the owners are truly moving in -- using these evictions, not incentivized by raising rent. it's a serious crisis facing the city, impacting the diversity and stability of our city and the ability to retain a diverse workforce that can afford to live here, including teachers, social service providers, nurses, in-home care workers, restaurant and hotel workers, child-care providers and more. this reasonable set of amendments allow the city to protect hundreds of tenants without impacting the basic interest of landlords and the properties. i just want to recognize the anti-displacement coalition, community tent asiosing,
12:42 pm
housing rights committee, tenants union, labor counsel, mission are sro collaborative and senior disability action for their support of this legislation, but also your work in helping us to draft it. of course i want to recognize ivie and april from my office who worked very closely with the city attorney's office, to bring this legislation before us. that is my opening comments. and we do not have a presentation on the ordinance today. and so if there are no further comments from committee, i would like to request that we open up for public comment. >> thank you. let's open up public comment. ladies and gentlemen, i have a stack of cards here for item no. 9. we will stick to the stack. so that we have some order and fashion. [ reading speakers' names ]
12:43 pm
please just come up to the microphone. [ reading speakers' names ] please, come speak. >> the speakers were not able to come in. >> that is fair. i will signal to the sheriff to let them in. >> okay. thank you. >> you can continue. >> it's regarding the statement that supervisor kim has made. the senior has already been protected by their current rental law. so if the law is just another way to -- -- the minority to the majority -- and the landlord is the majority. and also, if using the
12:44 pm
statistics from 2010 until right now it's only for the last three years, only 1% of the -- -- it's only about 1%. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is ivan soon. i think this ordinance is very, very bad. not only is it very badly written, like no. 1. you say landlords after certain vacancies to set the land-based rent before. it's really ambiguous, how many vacancies do you need? who is going to decide in plus no. 2, substantial violation. how many violations do you need before the landlord can evict you? it's also not specified. and plus an opportunity to --
12:45 pm
landlord must have given them an opportunity to cure it. what if they don't? it's not the lance landlord's problem. why would property owners not rent the properties? right now the rent ordinance is so harsh on the landlord. they would rather leave them vacant. so inasmuch as this ordinance is badly written, the intention is vicious and it's very vile and wants to rob the owners of the property and give them to the tenants. that is not right. that is not what america stands for. no matter why tenants are so
12:46 pm
happy and want to be tenants forever. we should learn from other countries like singapore, 40 years ago, singapore had only 20% homeowners, but the population rose to 6 million. 6 million and yet the homeownership rise to 80%. how did they do this? not by rent-control. they did it by developing more housing. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, given that we have a large number of speakers, what i propose to do is we honor the folks that have come into the chamber, who have been here first and the longest. i will ask the sheriff to come on this side and we're going to go row by row and start in the chamber. as we continue to make room,
12:47 pm
we'll bring the folks in the overflow room into the chambers to testify on this item. so the people that are in line now may continue to queue up and we'll go row by row. thank you. mr. deputy sheriff, could you allow that woman behind you, too? thank you, sir. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is gloria. i'm a property owner. more laws -- -- speculators will get it back -- need to distinguish good landlords from bad. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> does that mean i can have the rest of her minute and 45 seconds? >> of course not. >> i know. >> nice try. >> yeah, well, you know?
12:48 pm
you have to try this. is great legislation. we need more rent-control for people that are renters. i was evicted. i have been evicted. and when i was a renter, i would have my landlord walk in on me to check out my place to see if i kept it in good stead? well, i said to him the first time he walked in you ever do that to me again, i'm going to scream rape and he never walked in again, but this is the kind of crap landlords do. they want to get rent-controlled people out, so they can jack up the rents. and you know, for everybody that says we need more affordable housing, we need this, we need that and the other breath they are evicting
12:49 pm
on frivolous reasons. i don't understand it. and the people that are getting evicted are the people that can't afford to buy. landlords say oh, my god, well i'm afraid to rent my building out. well, if you can't take it, get out of rental business. cash out. sell the building. and move to grass valley or someplace. because being a landlord can be difficult when you get challenging people. but that is such a small minority of renters. you need -- this amendment needs to go through to protect the people that are the first-responders, that are the seniors, that are disabled, that are teachers and nurses. because you can bet, they are the ones that are in these rent-controlled places. who can afford to buy these days? i say pass the legislation. thank you.
12:50 pm
>> thank you, next speaker. >> hi, good afternoon. thank you very much for holding this hearing and for this legislation. my name is kathy and i live in the noe valley and some tenants have have been leafleting for tenant rights. one woman is so frightened she didn't want to give her name and i will give briefly the texas the testimony she gave me. i'm 65 beyond years old and lived in the 1100 block of church street of noe valley for 30 years. unfortunately my friend died in
12:51 pm
2013. then her mother the mother of the land lady moved into the apartment and she died in 2014. i have always paid my share of rent in cash and have many receipt and believe that the san francisco tenant's union i have certainly established i hope to convince the land lady to help me find a tenant who has given me nothing -- i hope to convince the land lady to find a tenant to pay market rent and i would continue to pay my rent and have a place to stay and the land lady would have additional income. i hope the land use and transportation committee understands the just cause eviction protection for all tenants and most especially the provision that allows a person to add roommates. i think that would save a lot of us. thank you very much. >> thank you.
12:52 pm
next speaker, please. . >> good morning, my name is mark brenon. i oppose this legislation. this legislation continues 40 years' of bad progressive housing policy that has created the mess we're in now. with regards to skyrocketing evictions, can we have them broken down by landlords? your findings will unreported evictions have little to back them up. it will create a even more hostile environment between landlord and tenant. there is no evidence that the inability to add roommate and lack of privacy in the bedroom is causing people to leave. supervisor kim's findings and opening statements today are just the usual scare mongering rally pointing used by activists who need subsidizing. this legislation also seems to apply control that has been
12:53 pm
repeatedly struck down by courts. there are ways to fix the housing mess. many units in this will be taken off the market. this will not create any solutions. instead of reworking rent control, you seek to continue bad policies. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is judith and i'm an eviction defense attorney for la rosa. i serve clients in the mission district and all over san francisco. these are low-income, mono lingual spanish-speaking families and i'm here because i had a client who was in her home for 20 years in the mission district. she widowed. when she widowed, the landlord tried to kick her out because she wasn't on the lease, but it was her husband. she prevailed. she was only paying $300 a
12:54 pm
month, the landlord tried to accuse her of no longer living in the unit. what was happening she was traveling a lot, visiting family. she had family on the east coast. she had family in her home country. so she wasn't home, and she had daughter coming in to take care of her cat, who stayed there. so the landlord accused her of moving out and having someone new there. she took her to superior court, and even though she had a lot of proof it was very stressful for her and she was sickly and decided to move out >> it's very unfortunate, when someone has a strong case, that they still feel the pressure of the broken system to leave their home of over 20 years. i'm just asking for more eviction protections and that the legislation would solve some of the issues and have tenants like my client decide
12:55 pm
to fight. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon everyone. my name is bing and i'm from district 10. i am here to share my story. shortly after my family moved to san francisco, we decided to live together. we thought we were very fortunate to find a place, since it allows us a very convenient transportation to our employment. before signing the lease, the landlord told us at least three times that the in-law unit was legalized. as soon as we moved in, our landlord started violating our law as tenant. they entered our unit without any notice and at first, they also installed surveillance cameras to monitor our entrance and exit.
12:56 pm
we also -- there are also many other issues including insects and unsafe stove and inadequate heating. there is also problems in the electrical and water heating problem. we told the landlord to fix all the defects in writing, but they refused to make the repairs. and instead, they applied for legalizing the unit without notifying us. so three days' of notice to quit based on use of the unit for an illegal purpose. i could not believe -- i only have three-day notice to move out of the unit, which they assured that the unit was legalized. this legislation, if passed,
12:57 pm
would legalize the unit before renting them to the tenants. and would help to prevent tenants like me from being permanently evicted. >> thank you, next speaker, please. :hi, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is christian deng, representing the asian law caucus. i have a tenant who is inable to make it today because of mobility issue. she is 90 years old disabled tenant, living in the unit for 35 years. when she first entered the unit was through a friend, the phrentwas renting because he needed some assistance with his rent. so when she moved in, everything was fine up until last year. the friend passed away. and when the friend passed bay, what the landlord did was serve
12:58 pm
a notice raising the rent to $3200 for a one-bedroom. so i really urge you that if you can get this passed it would be so helpful for this tenant. and because she is unable to pay this, she has to move out. and i just want to thank you again for just listening and thank you for giving us this time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is wendy and i'm representing the asian law caucus. i want to tell a story of one of our clients. the tenant is a family of three that has lived in the unit since 2010. the owner is an organization that speaks and write fluently
12:59 pm
in chinese. the tenant and landlord negotiated their lease completely in chinese and all of the notices that they had receive d in chinese. the owner hire a property manager and even they the notices were served in both english and chinese. this year the tenant received a notice of entry, because the landlord wanted to sell the property, but this notice of entry was provided in only english and the tenant did not understand this notice and soon afterwards he received a 30-day notice to vacate. passing this legislation would allow the tenant to understand what the landlord is asking of him? so my question to you guys is can you vote to have this -- to have all of these notices served in the native language of the tenant? so
1:00 pm
that to allow for better communication, so that they can understand the situation and understand what the landlord is asking of them? thank you. >> theresa flander again. i really believe in these additional tenant protections, because what i have seen in my role as working with senior and disabled action, as well as in north beach with tenants, i have seen those suffering at emory lane and at the hands of ki yogi. two years one tenant on filbert street has been absolutely harassed and had many different things done to her, to her mother, to her husband, and seen so many other neighbors
1:01 pm
leave because they did not understand the notices that they received that were not in chinese or in italian. so we as working with different agencies have been trying to warn people, tell them where to go to get help. warn them about tactics that these new landowners are using and these are new landowners. these are not the landlords that we have known traditionally here. these are speculators only interested in investments and not people and communities. so what we have done in many of the agencies, who have tried to go around with information in different languages, in russian, in english, in spanish, chinese, et cetera. so make sure that people know there is a place that they can go to, but if the laws are also in place, so many more people would be able to stay in their homes and stay in our
1:02 pm
communities. so please, please pass this. >> thank you, next speaker. >> thank you supervisor kim for great legislation. we do need to hold the line against people who buy properties that are rental properties, but they buy them with the speculative interest. and we need to put a stop to ravaging our communities. this legislation helps in that respect. it also helps have -- well, i have some ambivalence about the additional roommates by the hud standards of occupancy. it also mitigates against the people who say oh, but i couldn't possibly share a room with somebody else. well, this gives people who say that they need that extra income to get by, that they could, in fact, have an additional roommate. one of the things that is especially good is having an
1:03 pm
attachment form in several languages. i really think that will go a long way. remember our rent-controlled housing is older. it needs a lot of work to keep it in condition. and we want to kind of balance keeping the properties in good condition with the needs of the tenants. because it's the people who live in san francisco that make our town. we have built this town and we don't want to have anybody evicted by a speculator. thank you. >> hi. my name is jasmine and a program manager at the mission collaborative, as well as a resident of district 3. 10. sorry. i just wanted to -- there was one thing that was mentioned earlier about how activists
1:04 pm
tend to exaggerate the numbers and i just want to make folks aware that the majority of the housing right activists and housing right organizations do work under grants. which means that they have to report their numbers and they have to prove that they actually worked on cases. and actually, how -- you know like we are all working so hard and we're not paid that much money. and we are advocating for better housing rights in san francisco. for somebody to say that we are just exaggerating the numbers. like every day in my office, i hear stories of people getting evicted. i think it was last friday, 4:00 p.m., somebody walked in because the landlord was trying to revict him because he had too many newspapers in his room and stated that the public health had inspected his room without knowledge and it was a notice to quit. it was friday at 4:00 p.m. that had he to figure out how he was going to stay in his unit. additionally there was another resident of the francis hotel that was threatened and told
1:05 pm
that six men would come to her room and rape her unless she left her room. she didn't leave her room and the next day there was a message from the sheriff in english and three our four men came to evict her from her room, when the day before she was told there. there are a lot of landlords not accountable and a lot of let the landlords that are harassing residents. so i ask to you please vote and support the just cause because the situation is bad with landlord harassment. thank you. >> thank you.
1:06 pm
>> translator: , good afternoon supervisor, i am the president of the community tenant association, the largest grassroots tenant organization in the city with over 1400 members who are low-income, mono-lingual members. we have over 70 members here today with us in support of supervisor kim's eviction 2.0 proposal.
1:07 pm
many landlords in the city are being motivated by high rents using loophole existing laws to evict tenants. the city needs to fix certain blahs tenants cannot speak english -- i personally know that we have members here today who are currently going through evictions because they have fallen victim to these leap
1:08 pm
loopholes. so current housing crisis also making tenants in the city feeling scareds. we strongly demand supervisors to supported the eviction 2.0 amendments and stabilize your community. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. this is javier and i'm reading his pre-written statement. may, 20 is a i won a adu case against my landlord. these days i feel more atpeace, but i noticed that during the open house, the people that
1:09 pm
would come to look at the apartment were not latinos. there is only about three or four families left that are latinos. the landlord at times would come into our apartment with the pre-text of pest control, but use the opportunity to come into our bedrooms. sometimes she would tell my wife that her mexican food smelled bad and our apartment smelled like dirty clothes and would urge us to go do laundry. she would also make issues of my daughter bringing her soccer friends to visit and went so far as posting pictures of my daughter's friends for other tenants to report when they came over. i can't even invite my own family over, because it would cause problems.
1:10 pm
i didn't see any other option, but to good fight. in order we received five notices of breach of lease -- we're not used to living with three or four families and we no option to fight and we won. >> gracias. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> buenos tardes.
1:11 pm
>> translator: hello my name is maria silva and i think i'm a great example -- the landlord in our apartment was trying to evict us saying that our family was too big, but it's just me, mys and two husband and two children.
1:12 pm
>> translator: the harassment began about three years ago, but the biggest notice we received was the 25th of february. that is when we started the hard fight. i remember that that day i got home from work and i was really hungry, but i had to leave to look for help, because i found the notice on my door. this unlawful detainer left me frustrated with anxiety and depressed. during the whole time -- during the whole process, i felt discriminated against and harassed. where we were going to go? i
1:13 pm
felt anxiety. it affect the my youngest child. i didn't know my rights at the time even after we won our case, the landlord continued to harass us through our attorney. she would make claims that we
1:14 pm
making our payments on-time, even though she was the one not cashing the checks. at times we would see her and we would grow panicked and prefer to come back until she was come. i feel like my anxiety really affected my youngest child. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my my name is ross, and eye a tenants right attorney and i'm reading testimony on behalf of our client, jeffrey shelton who lost his home. i had an active life while managing my health.a single hiv positive gay men, it was a culminnation of a live of hard work. i asked my landlord if my long-term disabled boyfriend
1:15 pm
could move in with me. any landlord had my boyfriend complete a rental application and made some unlawful demands on me. ohio next year the landlord began a campaign of harassment to cause me to abandon my home and installed security cameras in the building and would ask whether my boyfriend was living at the apartment? after a year of harassment i was served an eviction notice accuse of violation of 12 different ways. in vague acquisitions accusations of disrespecting the landlord. i received notices and incurred legal defenses and to object to these gross invasions of my privacy. my home became a construction zone.
1:16 pm
with no end in sight i eventually gave up hi my home and moved to another area. eviction 2.0 could have aided in my fight to remain in san francisco. my story is an example of how landlords abuse their ability to evict and harass tenants based on agreements -- i'm hopeful if i have the opportunity to return to san francisco i will not be again forced to accept that [speaker not understood] >> thank you, next speaker. my name is bill. second generation san francisco native. my grandparents moved here a little over 100 years ago, one from spain, one from russian and where would i be today if i didn't have rights? you know, i think about this
1:17 pm
landlord deal. in my 70 years' of living in san francisco, i have seen what people after 20, 30 years get evicted from a house, after they paid for it. you don't only rent it, but help pay for that house. landlords are a big part of that, but instead of rewarding you, they evict you and that is wrong. i love san francisco and i hate to leave it. my kids are third-generation and i hope they stick around another 70-100 years. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> my name is cheryl chen and i oppose this. i represent a group of working-class homeowners/landlords. we have paid $100,000 to $1 million for the houses that we own. if our own money.
1:18 pm
it's not government money. who should decide who should be in our house, especially for those who violate the law? not following the rental a[pwra-eplt/], do not pay the rent, disturb the peace and safety of the neighborhood. why can't we rent to the people who follow the law and who pay the rent? it's their duty to pay the rent. it's their duty to follow the law, follow the rental agreement. we would like to rent it to the people who follow the law, who pay the rent. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> okay, ladies and gentlemen, asa courtesy reminder, there is no applause, booing or chanting or hissing or any kind of auditory response. if you hear something that you like, just hold up your hangs
1:19 pm
hands and shake your fingers like this, the spirit finger also communicates to the people at home watching the television as well. thank you. >> thank you. i'm the owner of small rental property. i'm speaking in opposition to your proposal, supervisor kim. thank you all for your attention. i have own my rental property for 10 years. i am withholding units from the market. i am going to read aloud to you an excerpt from an item published by the bay citizen written by elizabeth stevens in april 30, 2011 entitled "small time landlords versus big time tenant rights ." in san francisco one of the toughest places in the country to find a place to live, more
1:20 pm
than 31,000 housing units, one of every 12 now sit vacant according to recently released census data. that is the highest vacancy rate in the region and 70% increase from a decade ago. increasingly small -time landlords are just giving up. i am one of them. and your legislation as proposed, supervisor kim, will not incentivize me to return my rental units to the market. i will continue to withhold them if your legislation is adopted. i predict more people, more property owners will join me, and that 31,000 units being withheld and kept vacant will increase and that will result with greater stress for tenants, increased prices for
1:21 pm
rental units. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello my name is betty, resident of san francisco and a proud resident of district 6. i am here to talk about what is happening on yerba buena island with the city being my landlord. >> i'm sorry, you have to speak on i. item 9. >> i am speaking on item 9. we support this legislation and are proceed of supervisor kim's proposal to bring rights to the weakest and most vulnerable in our city. our community consists of low-income and very low-income members and in that sense, many of our community members are being harassed, and intimidated
1:22 pm
to depart from their homes in order to clear the way for luxury housing development. and in that, it's going to be too late for my neighbors, but we hope that if this legislation is passed, it can protect not only district 6ybi community, but also all of the members of all of the people of the city of san francisco from unlawful behavior, and intimidation, and wrongful eviction. thanks so much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my my name is andrew long and i live in district 8, scott wiener's district. i am here to speak against this legislation. i think this is a housing-killer. there is so many things wrong with it, but i will start with first of all your through no-fault eviction. they lived in their property
1:23 pm
for ten years. their situation changed and they moved on. you think they are going to rent out their old place for what was rented for 10, 11 years ago when they first moved? of course not. those units will become permanently non-rental and sold to new occupiers. in terms of the roommate thing, allowing more and more roommates is unacceptable. it's contrary to lease agreements. and you are just going to take nice buildings that have reasonable numbers of people living in them and turn them into slums as people start packing in more and more roommates. finally, the thing about the illegal units. you can be in a situation, that you have a property owner that is getting a notice of violation from dbi over and over again, for having residents in a commercial space. and there is nothing that owner can do about it. and in terms of this eviction thing, as far as giving the
1:24 pm
translated language thing is fine, but the other provisions i think will create more delay tactics for bad tenants to delay or defeat just evictions for things, like, nuisance and lease violations and anything who has lived next door to a drug-dealer knows what a nuisance is. and all you are doing is giving more tools for people like that to stay in place and continue to deal drugs. i think you should kill this now. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you for having me, my name is allison and i live in castro, and i'm a teacher in san francisco at the san francisco unified school district. my landlord is currently being sued by the city of san francisco. i have lived in castro for ten years, nine of those years were just fine until a year-ago, when the owner purchased my property. at which points threatening and harassing texts
1:25 pm
and phone calls and letters came in the mail, accusing me of breaches of lease, such as having my partner move in with me, despite me having the right for my former landlord in writing that she could live there and also her being on the estoppel. she asked if we were registered domestic partners and then came the questions about my dog, my yellow lab named harveyee milk, whether or not he can live at my home, despite me signing a pet addendum to my lease >> she continues to throw spaghetti to the roll because i'm rent-controlled and i would like to remain in my home and to continue to teach at san francisco unified school district, where currently there is over 500 teacher vacancies because teachers can't afford to live here. i would like to remain in my home and i would like to live in the community that i serve. thank you for your time.
1:26 pm
>> thank you for teaching in our school district. >> hi, my name is sarah, from housing rights committee. we have a housing crisis in san francisco. and we have an eviction crisis in san francisco. some of these landlords want to pretend they are subsidizing tenants. i have to say i wish my wage went up with inflation every year. and i'm sure you all -- everyone else does, too. there is an eviction crisis because there is greedy landlords in san francisco. there is a line out of door at housing rights committee like there is at every group in town. i can't go to a park on the bus, to a bar, hang out talk to my neighbors in front of my house or baby showered without someone telling me about getting an eviction notice or getting harassed by the landlord. this law will take care of things, like, when landlords over and over make it clear they want the tenant out for
1:27 pm
more money and they usually often say that. they are like take a buyout, or you know how much i could represent your apartment for? and turn around a couple of weeks later and give 3-day notices for things that clearly they haven't cared about the last how many years. they didn't care about the parakeet or landry or shoes in the hallway until suddenly they think they can make more money. this is why we need this legislation. this legislation is about every tenant group in town saying what ways are landlords using loopholes in the law to trick people out? this is about greed. the last point i want to make on illegal units. landlords who rent out illegal units rented them to these tenants to make money. they can get a demolition permit, give relocation money and ask for 60 days still under
1:28 pm
this law. we're just saying that you can't give somebody 3-day notice for something that you rented out in the first place. >> thank you. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> tony robles from the heritage foundation and senior and disability. the landlords that are suffering hardships that they are offering somehow benevolence, if that were the case, we wouldn't have a need for 2.0 tenant protections. these protections that have been proposed are reasonable. now very recently we had some 20 filipino-americans that reside on natomas street get hit with 3-day notices for very
1:29 pm
innocuous reasons. it had not been for the close-knit community that included services like senior and disability action, asian pacific islander outreach and west bay filipino multi-services, you know, these families perhaps would not be able to stay in their homes. district 6 of the course is part of the youth and family zone are sda zones and other agencies and it remains the home of vulnerable populations including low-income filipino-americans and for areas targeted for wealthier residents. progress should not come at the expense of the poor. that is why these new proposals such as having notices put in english, and other languages for people that are mono lingual, taking away the landlord's profit motives for evicting long-term, underserved tenants are all reasonable things. we're coming upon august 4th,
1:30 pm
the 38th anniversary of the evictions of the i-hotel and let's pass this in their memory. because it was out of control now and it's way out of control now. they are off the chain and we have to reign them in, because they are out of control. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. romoro from mission development agency. i'm a mission resident. i just want to say thank you to supervisor kim. everything that we can make to keep rent control and keep tenants in san francisco is valuable and deserves all of the support of the public. i really appreciate what you are doing. for every unit that we are building we are losing also
1:31 pm
almost a unit. and this legislation protections the most vulnerable tenants in the city. for the landlords that start this business of renting, they know the conditions. and they are just blind by the greed of money and using these tacticks to destroy of the diversity of this city. we cannot allow that to happen, and people will come every time here to the city hall to reclaim this city as a city for diversity, for working-class people living in these neighborhoods. i hope that you understand the message very clear from the community for all of the city. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisor kim. my name is hong and i appreciate you listening.
1:32 pm
first of all, i oppose the proposal, because i think you didn't focus on the main problem is the demand for the housing. thank you for thinking about how to protect. protection is good, but this way it will create even more restrictions of the rental stock. basic economics, you know that the invisible hand -- this is the basis [pwa*-eubgs/] basic rule. 95% of the tenants -- [speaker not understood]
1:33 pm
the 99% who obey the law, so you are going to reduce to rent -- -- no surprise. the landlord pay the tax more and more each year. the city should make less law to restrict and deep the incentive for more affordable housing.
1:34 pm
>> thank you. next speaker. remember? no applause. next speaker. >> my name is tracy. i'm a small property owner. i strongly oppose the legislation no. 9. let me tell you some sad story of the small property owner of san francisco. small property owner of san francisco between the san francisco government and the tenants. city government is too much on tenants' side. keep making so many unfair laws against the property owner. some have bad tenants who don't pay the rent for a year. landlords should be paid --
1:35 pm
$50,000 or $100,000, but the bad tenants can get free lawyers from the city. because the unfair housing law, so many property owners don't want to put their in-law market or the house in the market. that is why the market rent, the rent goes too high. when school, departments, libraries, teachers -- -- small
1:36 pm
property owners have been the easy target for unfair predatory -- >> thank you, next speaker. next speaker, please. >> hello. >> translator: my my name is jean. i want to protect my house. i worked so hard and i don't want to rent to bully tenants. i was threatened by the bully tenants and lost $365,000.
1:37 pm
my name is christie. a small property owner in san francisco. i am here today to oppose the rent amendment 150646. the first part of this amendment requests landlord after certain vacancis to set new base rent. this presents a big disadvantage to homeowners who want to rent units or their property after a long period of time. according to sfgate, the rental price in san francisco raised 10.6% compared to the national average of 3% in 2013. if this ordinance is passed those homeowners will be less motivated to rent out their property.
1:38 pm
therefore, decreasing the number of properties for the rent in san francisco, a city with an increased population is really bad. okay? secondly, i strongly oppose the third part of this law, because the tenant is occupying a unit not authorized for residency. this part of the ordinance posed a big safety risk to the tenant. if an in-law is illegal, it's most likely due to safety problems. therefore, by not allowing those owners to evict the tenants and if the tenant decides to stay, they will live in a dangerous environment. if this ordinance passed, it will allow the people staying in their illegal units. the process of legalizing -- i think it should be an option
1:39 pm
of owners' choice. overall, i think the ordinance has good intentions, but there should be a better way to support the course. today we heard so many stories and i think we need to set some laws that could balance both tenants and the landlords. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is jim. i'm a small property owner. i came here as a teenager with $10 in my pocket and paid myself through college and now i have a job that i can afford to support myself. the problem is that i saved my money. it took me ten years to pay my college loan and another ten years to put money down for my house. now i manage and support myself with that money and all that, but this law is one-sided and it's going to make the landlord's job very difficult.
1:40 pm
a few years back you changed the law so we had to pay for parking spaces. i know the same board, most of the people on the panel here agreed on putting tax -- on top of property tax we have to pay for parking fee and business registration and renting out a parking space. to make this law, it will make it very difficult. we already pay enough taxes and trying to keep up with it. it would be very expensive for us to upkeep the building so it's nicely habitable and safe for everybody. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker.
1:41 pm
>> translator: i oppose this -- i demand our city to also consider homeowners. property tax go up. why our rent cannot be up? this year property taxes went up a lot. we cannot afford the property tax. we need to get equivalent increases. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. my name is -- i'm a small property owner in san francisco. i say no to this law. in san francisco, bad tenants are much more than the bad landlords. how come supervisor don't make the law for the bad tenants? when the tenant move on without cleaning or paying the water bill, the owner those pay for
1:42 pm
them. the other counties don't have that requirement. [speaker not understood] the owner spends $500 to $1,000 to trim the tree each time. all small property owners are working hard for their mortgage and property taxes. some work two, three jobs and don't qualify for ssi, only tenants can. don't touch this law. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. ? >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is sonya and i'm a small property owner. today, the small property owner
1:43 pm
are attending this public hearing because the small property owner makes money to pay for the property and the house we pay. when the housing market less properties on the market, you know why? because of the ridiculous law scares property owners. they are afraid -- they have pay their own money to hire the lawyer, but tenants have free lawyers to help them. it makes the city's housing crisis worse and worse.
1:44 pm
we pay for the bonds and everything, but we don't have any right. the rent-control make the tenants -- if they are trouble, they can get a lot of money from the small property owner. you know, in san francisco, enough with this ridiculous rent-control law. >> next speaker. >> my name is tom ray. i'm a native san franciscan. i live in the mission district. i encourage the supervisors to pass the eviction protections 2.0 ordinance. many san francisco tenants have been living in their homes for years with no complaints from their landlords.
1:45 pm
now people's homes and apartments have been turned into investment properties, not homes. because of market-rate greed. what was acceptable in the past by landlords and property managers have been turned into frivolous complaints to evict tenants in order to make an obscene profit during the current gold-rush real estate and property boom in san francisco. my friend rented a place in haight ashbury and has been there over 25 years and the landlord really harassed everybody else out and the people upstairs are paying $5,000 a month rent. so this greed is becoming a virus in this city. i mean, i can feel for the small property owners, but these big property owners are buying the small property owners and this is a problem. this is a big problem.
1:46 pm
this whole greed factor from big developers and wall street. so i think this ordinance is a good start and it helps create a more far, due process for evictions. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker phoning, , please. . >> good afternoon, i am a small property owner. [speaker not understood] thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i didn't think it was possible, but to drive a bigger wedge between landlords and tenants this legislation does it. first of all, your numbers, you can cherry-pick five years ago. if you want to show an accurate picture, show all of the numbers.
1:47 pm
i appreciate all of the human relation stories that running back espoused. just from one from the other side, i must be the best landlord in the city, because i have a tenant that own a 9-unit building a block from the fairmount hotel who prefers to live in my building rather than hers. if you want to do something creative to the rent-control ordinance, which has been changed hundreds of times, and by the way, stakeholders, property owners, do not understand the full ramifications until they actually this stuff hits them in the face. hundreds of times have been changed since 1979, including when it was first passed. four units or less weren't even in the ordinance. so it changes. it changes over time this. is bad law. it's bad precedence.
1:48 pm
if you want to do something creative, why don't we means-test everybody? so everybody knows what we're getting?and we help the people that need the help, and to tell you the truth, it looks to me like if we tag-team tenants from google, we're going to have people in these apartments for decades. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i'm here today because i'm concerned that this legislation will hurt both tenants and landlords and make the housing problem even worse. first the legislation regarding irl legal in-laws punish and scare away from those who encourage in-law rentals that the city needs. there are non-rent-controled single homes in the city, but the threat of any rent-control will scare away further
1:49 pm
develops of in-laws. second i hope our elected officials and elected leaders keep a balanced view and protect right of both tenants and landlords. it seems very popular and easy to vilify landlords, but please remember that the small landlords are also regular middle-class people. they are retired teachers, plumbers and nurses that somehow even in the '80s about interest rates were 15-16%, they managed to keep their homes. the current eviction process exists to protect both tenants and landlords and this bad legislation ensures that if the landlord follows the law and goes through the court process, and wins the eviction case, he or she will still be punished with rent-control. finally, we live in one of the world's most exciting and innovative and creative cities , but sadly our rental laws and building codes and ideas have
1:50 pm
remained stagnant. why is it donald trump and bill gates decided to move to a two-bedroom apartment in the richmond, they could still benefit from rent-control? we need better regulation s to protect both tenants and landlords. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is howard epstein and i'm the vice president of the small property owners of san francisco. and we're here to oppose this bad law. a couple of things that haven't been mentioned -- i don't want to go over everything that has been mentioned last hour or so, but something that hasn't been mentioned is the fact when people sign leases, leases are, in fact, contracts. and according to this legislation, it says contracts are no good in san francisco.
1:51 pm
if you say we're going to have two people move in, and you can't have anybody else, and you consenting adults sign the lease, this says that is no good. you can move anybody else in you want. some of the other ramifications are, again, somebody earlier mentioned the number of vacancy-by-choice units. this will skyrocket that number, because we, the landlords and i have been a small property owner -- it will be 30 years in december and i'm getting about fed up with all of this. as it keeps coming in and coming in and coming in. the people are not going to take it anymore, and that will happen, but more than that, as i mentioned before, the contracts are no good. attorneys are going to have a field day with this. suing the city, and the city is going to pay their legal charges afterwards because any court in the world that looks
1:52 pm
that the is going to say it's illegal. thank for your time. >> this legislation or ordinance actually we have rent-control ordinance as it is. i am not against limiting increases in rent-control to a reasonable amount. i am not a greedy landlord, but this seems to punish small property owners that are good landlords because of the few bad ones and i totally sympathize with all of the cases that came up today, and the landlords that just bugged the people and harassed them. that is not right. but ng addithese additional ordinances does not solve our problem. it only, in my view, gives the tenants more rights and as property owners who have bought
1:53 pm
the buildings some at times that nobody was buying because the economy turned down and we were fixing them up. it punishes up because we have no rights against our tenants. they have all of the rights and we have none. please, i beg you, relook at this issue and do not pass this ordinance. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. my name is mary. i own seven units. it's been in the family 100 years. i consider myself a very good landlord. i am facing now $100,000 plus retrofit, which i will gladly do. it makes everybody safe, but all of these changes that you are going to make is going to make it more and more difficult for me to hang on to this lovely building, that has been in the family 100 years and i take great pride in it and i have wonderful tenants.
1:54 pm
i am a goodwill good landlord. there are a lot of us in san francisco. i am a native here, believe me. thank youch thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i am with united food commercial workers local 648. i'm here because i was born and raised in san francisco. my mom has lived in the same apartment and rented for 45 years. i have seen what a big- time landlord can indirectly and directly bully a tenant. we also live across the street from silvia smith, who you mentioned earlier and her dealings with her new landlord. i can see what a landlord like that can do to a family. i am here to support tenants. i think the piece of legislation that you have put forward is wonderful and great. and i support it. my union supports, and it's time that tenants fought back
1:55 pm
the abuse, and fight the evictions. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisorses. my name is angela and i'm a small business owner and my parents don't speak perfect english and i will here to represent them. i will note on the proposed ordinance to residential the rent stabilize and arbitration ordinance and i'm deeply troubled by the four areas of the ordinance. notch 1, the new base rent equal to the time at vacancy means that if i have vacated a
1:56 pm
unit in 2009, but supervisor kim will limit me to set the rent at $1,000 still. so the question is who is the owner of my property, you a renter politician or me, the property owner? who gets to decide the market-rate? you, the supervisor, or the real estate market? who works his or her butts off to save a down payment and pay bills for the unit, he or she, renter or property owner? in other words, if the tenants do drugs, conduct prostitution or make dynamite in the unit, i, the landlord cannot evict them? three, if the tenant being evicted for nuisances or damages, it must be ongoing at the time that the notice is served. in other words, if the tenants are having a drug party
1:57 pm
i the landlord must wait there and serve the 3-day notice? in sum, i'm strongly opposed to supervisor jane kim's ordinance because with you and supervisor avalos, supervisor campos and supervisor mar have been biased to the landlords -- >> thank you. >> just as a reminder, asa courtesy to your fellow public commenters, please adhere to the 2-minute limit, so that everyone has an opportunity to speak here today. no one message is more important than the other. >> good afternoon, supervisors and everybody, i am the
1:58 pm
co-owner -- -- i don't know how you say in english. >> i'm a property homeowner. this law makes landlord cannot sustain. if it passes, we just withdraw from the rental market. make rental apartments further decrease availability, and please, do not scapegoat small property owners for city hall's mistakes. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is james tracy; community partnership homes
1:59 pm
homeless people. we retain our tenants. we don't evict our tenants. we create a climate of trust with our tenants, where when someone makes minor lease violations by putting something out in the hall and making too much noise, we talk with them like adults. we do not rush to eviction notice. if we can do it with our 1400 residents, i think just about anyone else can do it. that is why we have signed on to the letter with 44 very diverse organizers from all over, which i will submit to this committee. i also wanted to add one factoid, one that has been going around from the landlords' side that is frankly incorrect. the thousands of units being held off the unit, according to the census. i worked very hard on the census, through the city, through the office of citizen engagement and immigrant rights
2:00 pm
and that 31,000 were the amount of units, amount of homes that were for-rent on april 1, of 2010, that were vacant, but not abandon order held off the market for the most part. thank you. >> good afternoon, speakers. i am here with the anti-eviction project. very much supporting eviction protections 2.0. over the last couple of years, the mapping project has done a lot of work, calling attention to how deadly ellis act eviction and other no-fault evictions, but how deadly eviction and other forms of evictions in san francisco. looking at the recent surge of evictions in san francisco for the last five years found that breach of evictions have been
2:01 pm
rising more steadily than any other type of eviction. we found in 20 12 468 breach eviction and in 2014, 738 breach evictions and that number has risen dramatically over last two years, very much responding to the fact that san francisco is now the most expensive city in the united states and landlords are very eager to evict tenants for small, low-fault things to profit. we have been collecting data through the project the last two years and we have a survey administered online and through the san francisco tenant's union and tenants are constantly submiting their eviction stories to them. i was going through them to find of the most egregious ones, but one story of a woman who was evicted because she and her partner had a four-bedroom unit in the castro. they had a roommate that they had changed a couple of times
2:02 pm
during the time they lived there. the landlord knew about this and the relatives of the landlord knew it, but this past year they were evicted because it wasn't in monitoring. they installed a security camera [speaker not understood] so there are cases like this happening all the time and uno, who was a teacher with the unified school district couldn't find a place to live in san francisco and is in portland, oregon. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> my name benito santigo. -- thank you, supervisor jane kim for the residential rent stabilization arbitration ordinance. i have focused this on what i hear my colleagues mentioning to low-fault grievances that
2:03 pm
should be different time for arbitration for people to talk as adults, to clear out things, like shoes in the hallway, or laundry on the clothes line, what have you. the people -- those that i heard also, that have really you -- that really need to be evicted like the drug-dealer and prostitutes and what have you? that i can see their side on that. but for minor instances of putting shoes in the hallway, something like that, that should be -- we should be treated as adults and not just for the underlying premise of kicking out rent-controled persons like myself for the greed profit of the greedy speculators that sometimes they sell it for, like what happened with me.
2:04 pm
our landlord sold it to a speculator and they raised the rent. thank you supervisor jane kim for the ordinance and i support you 100%. thank you. >> thank you very much for your comments. >> hi, good evening, council. my name is miguel with ace. i am a veteran, a straight male and here to talk about why it's important to pass this legislation that supervisor jane kim wants to do. for those who came out here to san francisco to seek a new life or for a better workplace, as a tenant it's meaningful for you to pass something to help us out. know some have demonized us as drug-dealers and hookers and all of this stuff. you can look out in san francisco to people who aren't tenants who do that already. that comes with the territory, you know? it's an adult disneyland out here. besides that, i feel there isn't anything to help the kids
2:05 pm
in the mission, who are out there on the streets, slumming and living out of their cars. there are 8,000 kids who don't have a place to live and a lot of people homeless in san francisco. part of it is driven by greed and more money. obviously the field for housing is getting smaller and people can make more profit, but there has to be some sort of law, something to help the people out. and to help the community out of the because there being a standstill with the people that actually own property who want to rent it pore for high and no affordable housing to be built. you have a problem with no solution. there are people here who come out here to help out the community, as well as take way from the community. i strongly feel passing what supervisor kim says is going to benefit families and benefit people of color and is going benefit the city. thank you very much for your time and stop evictions and help san franciscans.
2:06 pm
>> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lee anderson, small property owner in san francisco. small property owners already carry substantial financial burden because of the existing rent-control ordinances that are in place. many property owners are paying thousands of dollars a month for mortgage, insurance, property taxes, city assessments, utility and building repairs and maintenance. because of the rent-control ordinance the rent received is often quite low the operating costs of the building not to mention the current market rate for comparable units, forcing landlords into a negative cash position is no longer enough. now supervisor kim and her comrades are conspiring with this legislation. if such an outrageous law should park the city will squeeze the landowners carrying below market rate units. with no hope of rising rents to
2:07 pm
carry it, victims the kim legislation would be left with the foing choices to a, perishally subsidize their you lifetimes in san francisco by paying for the lion's share of costs rest of their lives. b stop paying building and default on property taxes due to lack of income. c, completely give up and defaulted on the mortgage and walk away on the building. d, put your build up for sale for discount, et cetera. just who might want to buy a building like that? why it's the city itself. yes, the city would be creating a whole new department of bmr building. it's already happening now. that is too bad for the small guy who put his butt on the line for investing in san francisco. please don't pass this legislation. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi.
2:08 pm
my name is julie and i grew up here in san francisco. i represent my parents who are elderly, who cannot be here to speak for themselves. so i am speaking on their behalf. i want to ask one question of supervisor kim, to maintain the base rent of the tenant, even once the tenant has moved out. can i ask you what will protect the landlord's base payments for the property tax or the insurance? would you be willing to protect the base payment when the tenant moves out also? so i hear that your intentions for supporting this ordinance has come from your social justice. i am afraid that you are overshadowed by a lot of horror stories of tenants, that this ordinance will take care of the social justice. but my feeling is that this ordinance will only create social divide because the haves
2:09 pm
and not-haves. the haves being the tenants and the not-haves as the landlord. i hope that you really take our word thoughtfully, and listen to a lot of the homeowners, the landlords, the small property owners who actually provide housing for the needy. we over the years didn't become horrible landlords. we were once renters at one time. my parents were renters at one time and we became landlords after years of savings and hard work and knowing that a good investment in real estate. we are good landlords, otherwise are tenants why would they want to stay in our property? please do not on the ruin that. please listen and think about our reasons. thank you. >> thanks, next speaker.
2:10 pm
>> good afternoon.
2:11 pm
[str*-frpblgts/] i am a victim of a homeowner who lost a lot of money to a tenant, to bad tenants. >> translator: so i just wanted to tell you one other situation.
2:12 pm
reality is that some of the owners own property, but they are so afraid of renting it out, because of their tenants' protectionlaw. this is why the demand is way higher than supply. so supervisor, please, please consider on the homeowners' side and please treat them fairly. and make some better laws, so the landlord will make a better
2:13 pm
place also for the tenants. so maybe they can motivate homeowner to rent out again. please don't create law to on the surface it looks like it's helping the tenant. however, on the other hand, it's hurting their rights, because it's discouraging rental properties and decreasing the number of rental units. please make law that the homeowners and tenants can survive and live peacefully in such a nice place in san francisco. that is why i am opposed to
2:14 pm
this law. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is -- i'm vice president of the chinese realtor association of america. i opposed to this law personally i was a tenant for more than 10 years, and my parents were first-generation to come to the u.s.. they worked as laborers, working-class. they make minimum wage to support me to go to college, to have an education. as part of an immigrant and minority in san francisco, we want to have a piece of property to call a home. that is why we saved up every single penny that we earned, after 12 years' of living in san francisco. finally we became homeowners to own a piece of property here. however, the current tenant situation and then the current
2:15 pm
lawmaking it really hard, even for us. we were a tenant before and i have really good relationship with my past landlord. however, it makes it really hard for me to rent out some of the space in my house to benefit some of the tenants, because such a move might cause me tens of thousands of dollars in return. as i have spoken to many homeowners in san francisco, they have been victims of some of the bad tenants. however, we're all grassroot homeowners and please make the law fair to both sides, tenants and property owners. i am strongly opposed to this law, because i don't believe it will help to create a better housing situation in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
2:16 pm
>> hello. my name is theresa. i'm a parent of three wonderful children and soma tenant/resident. i wanted to ask you questions, because i do feel bad to some of the small property owners, but i'm also a tenant. do you have familis? i'm sure you do. kids? parents? grandparents? uncles? have you ever thought about your family as future? i am sewer you do. have you ever thought of what food put on your table for your family, when you don't have enough financial means? but we pay our rents on-time. we pay our bills on-time. do you know how it feels when you are being ellis act evicted four time through different owners tenants here in san
2:17 pm
francisco, we wouldn't be like this if all of our landlords are good landlords, just like i think some of them who are here. but have you observed the daily activitis? do you know our hurts, our pains and what our needs are? i want to know -- i want to let you know, first, when we had our first new landlord after our original landlord passed away, they cut off -- they had our water main closed and the san francisco water department at that time didn't even bother to investigate why. one of the previous owners went to the point of suggesting to us that we should put our seniors in a senior home, because that is where they
2:18 pm
should be. you do not say that to a filipino family, to a chinese family -- -- >> ma'am, your time is up. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, board of supervisor. my name is trudy. i'm a family organizer. i am here to support the passage of this tenant protection 2.0 proposed by supervisor jane kim. recently we have families, individuals, seniors and persons with disabilities who have been harassed, intimidated, evicted, and are displaced now. we are glad that this most urgent reforms in the city to control laws addressing the eviction crisis is being done. we need to pass this legislation for the protection of our tenants, and to stop the arbitrary evictions of greedy
2:19 pm
landlords. let's ensure that san francisco remains a city for everyone. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is raymond castillo. i work with community network and bayview resident, tenant there. at somcan, we work with youth and families in the neighborhood. i want to go over this year alone we worked with a lot of different eviction cases from ellis act eviction to omi, and that is only this year alone. the year is not even done yet and we have so much eviction and housing crisis in the city that i'm glad that supervisor kim has brought this legislation up and i'm all for it. i do want to talk about so of my youth. i work with around 15-20 youth,
2:20 pm
and for the past this year, i have about six youth that just got evict order currently going through eviction. and they are moving to oakland august 1st. just imagine how they feel. they go to balboa high school. they are involved with all of the after-school volleyball to football, and they are good kids. a year-ago they just found out their mother has cancer. and now they are going through eviction. in a couple of days they are moving to oakland. the school year is coming up they are going to have to travel that far to go back to balboa. just imagine how they feel. this whole process, knowing about their mother and all of this and this whole eviction thing. this has got to stop. if this thing was passed before, they should have been protected and they wouldn't have to move out.
2:21 pm
thank you, again, supervisor kim for bringing this and thank you for taking your time and please consider passing this, because it's really getting too much. thank you. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, again, supervisors. my name san fernandoo, with the council of community housing organizations and we are one of the 44 organizations that have signed on to support this very needed measure for tenant protections. i have a question for the small property owners, for the landlords and realtors, do you evict people without proof of violations when they pay their rent dutiful every month? if not, i would hope that you would support this legislation. do you find an excuse to move in a son or daughter for a few years just to evict the tenant and then jack up the rent? if not, would i hope that you would support this legislation.
2:22 pm
do you refuse to let your tenants understand you with translated notices? if that is not something that you oppose, i would suppose that would you support this legislation. those are the three simple things that it does. one more thing, i heard a few folks talk about means testing. i would like to see tenants be means tested. bring it on. let's see means testing for landlords? let's see means testing for the income tax mortgage deduction, the single largest subsidy that government does for housing. if you are not low-income, strike that. let's do means testing for prop 13, if you are not low-income, pay your taxes. i don't think that is where you want to go. once again, i think it's an important piece of legislatings that closes some very simple
2:23 pm
loopholes that nobody should be opposed to. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is galina freedman. i am 69 years old. and my husband is 80. for the last almost ten years we live in a house in a building which has 52 units. for the last -- in the last 1.5 years this house, this building was sold and the new building owner refused to take our rent for 1.5 years. we collect this rent. it became almost $30,000 in 1.5 years and the landlord complains of low-income to paying his expenses.
2:24 pm
our unit, our building has 52 units and if you say that two people live in each unit, it's 104 people are thrown out on the streets. for the last 2 years, i witnessed four buildings of the same capacity like ours being demolished in front of our eyes. and in this place, four new condominiums were erected, each one with a price $1.5 million. my husband is disabled. we tried to find a new place, but each place is much more than what we pay right now. we can't afford a new rent for about $4500. we can't afford to buy a condominium for $1.5 million. the only place we could afford in the near-future, if this
2:25 pm
harassment doesn't stop is a grave in the cemetery. i am for this to pass. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisor. steve collier, tenderloin housing clinic. i am here to urge your support of this legislation. mrs. freedman and her spouse are clients of mine and they are being evicted because the landlord is claiming that they are residential occupancy for the last ten years of their unit is illegal and he gave them a 3-day notice to move out. no relocation payments, no requires permit from the city to remove their unit from housing use. in fact,, the permit history is at best mixed. it was builts an apartment building. sometime in the '40s or '50s, possibly some units were converted to commercial units,
2:26 pm
but galina and michael's apartment is a nice apartment. and they are being evicted so the landlord can charge a higher rent and there is absolutely nothing would stop the landlord from doing that. this is the type of loophole that we need to close with the legislation. every rent-controlled tenant who is evicted results in a loss of affordability for san francisco because those units are then rented at market. and/or that tenant those then try to get some other below-market rate units through our bmr or affordable housing program. every unit that we lose is significant. and lastly, there is an industry that is causing these evictions. they focus on loopholes, landlord lawyers who make seminars on this and focus on telling their landlords to find
2:27 pm
any technicality that they can. because once the tenant is served with the notice, they have given 3-day and they will not be out in three day and they don't get to talk to a mediate or settle judge before the following monday. no tenant is going to have the resources in the few days on their own to fight the eviction and they end up moving so please support this legislation. thank you. >> >> hello, my name is patricia kerman and i want to thank supervisor kim for this legislation. it's greatly needed. i myself, went through an ellis act eviction. i fought it. and i won. issues i'm still living under the tension of i don't know what
2:28 pm
will happen next to me. these are buildings. they are homes. we're not talking -- this legislation really is not talking about the small, good landlord. they have nothing to fear from this, unless they are doing things that are reprehensible. then they better be afraid, because we want to have legislation to protect those who are being harassed; i have been going through harassment from my landlord for a long time. whether it's not fixing front porch lights, not taking out garbage, ceilings falling in from constant construction he is doing in the three remaining units. this has a great effect on somebody's health or i should say their ill-health, because
2:29 pm
you can't eat or sleep and you are stressed all of the time and this is what is happening to the people in our city. walk around the mission streets some evening with me and we'll go through all the tent cities lined up on 19th street, on folsom street, on -- you just name a street, you can go down there and you will find the tents come out and there is more and more and more every time i go for a walk. thank you. please pass this. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is jesse johnson and live in the tender lin.loin. most of the tenants have lived there long-term. i call them old-school because
2:30 pm
"old-school" mean it's family-owned. it means that the building has been designated historical, over 100 beyond beyond years old and looks like it is. it means that the front desk will come and scream at your door for some inexplicable reason. old-school means that you don't have a social worker writing up a file -- it means your room is going to be twice the size that a non-profit sro would put someone in and you can afford without a government subsidy. i know what i am describing is not the healthiest
2:31 pm
relationship. the problem is that when one party decides to break that contract, the party with the greater power like the landlord, we're screwed. so suddenly deciding that the guy who lived there for 27 years, the room is substandard and these people own a building full of rats decide you can't have a cat. you know, i think the legislation that supervisor kim has come up with is right on target for these situations. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> buenos tardes. >> translator: good afternoon. my name is pastino and i am here as a resident of district 10. where i have lived for the last 20 years.
2:32 pm
2:33 pm
this housing crisis is caused a wave of fires in san francisco. one of those fires resulted in the death of a senior and that i heard firsthand from the landlord and i say "fires" in quotes. one of these cases where a senior died i heard personally from the landlord, look, i got rid of the senior and the bank will still pay me out, isn't that great? i urge you to support this legislation because if you are all as our elected officials are not here
2:34 pm
to protect us, who is going to do it for us? we're not all here naming the equal price. everybody is naming their own price for housing and tenants are getting the short end of the stick. i feel like a stranger when i walk through any neighborhood, because it's changed so much. people that used to live in my neighborhood, moved out. i worry about if there were a place for my children to grow up or live when had he get
2:35 pm
they get older or our fate will be decided by wealthy property earn owners? i want to personally thank supervisor kim for this legislation. i think that it shows a commitment to justice and commitment to equality, and thanks for that. >> good afternoon, supervisor, my name is mary, housing likes organizer. it seem like this is a rainshower, routine, where we have hours and hours' of testimony talking about the ways in which it impacts their health and well-being and their
2:36 pm
children and future generation and past generations. you have heard all of it. i had members that were here that had to leave, artists in the mission being denied roommates just because the landlord doesn't want a roommate there. it doesn't violate the occupancy ordinance. it doesn't violate the lease. the landlord just wants to raise their rent and slowly evict them one at a time. tenants in supervisor avalos' district, district 10 are evicted and the person who served them the notice did not tell them what was and it was not in english and they lost in court because they didn't know what was going on. in san francisco, someone shouldn't be evicted because they don't speak english and i don't believe that any of you think that is right. this legislation takes us back to the spirit of law and if
2:37 pm
there are property owners afraid of this law, i worry what they are afraid of? if they are property owners following the law, that are ensuring that tenants have safe, accessible, affordable housing they should be able for this, because this legislation just keeps people in their home and makes sure that no one is homeless and makes it so that san francisco doesn't have to build homes for people who currently have homes. every time we build a unit, three or four units of affordable rent-controls unitss are lost. if we can stop evictions may we can move forward. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, before. >> before i moved tot to the bay, this was the kind of organization i was familiar with. i was surprised to finding it including opposing things like 8 washington and i don't agree
2:38 pm
with that. insofar as opposition -- opposing evision controls harms adding more capacity. strong eviction controls like this law, why i support it and also includes adding residential capacity as quickly, as cheaply and as safely as possible and there are parking lots that we can build on cheaply, fast, if we let it happen. those are the two prongs of effective anti-displacement and we can't have one without the other. only having one is not going to work. thank you. i support this. >> thank you. next speaker.
2:39 pm
>> hello, my name is jb and i'm here to oppose this legislation. there are several reasons and many have been touched on, but one thing that hasn't been touched on is the whole roommate issue. there are leases in place and the agreement of number of people that can live there. this is important both for the tenant and owner. first of all, if a tenant can add a sublease or person to the unit at-will, the owner doesn't get compensated for the extra water bill, the extra wear-and-tear and all of the problems. there is no reason that the tenant couldn't charge market rate even though they are currently subsidized with below-market rate and they could pocket the difference. it is going to lead a lot of people doing this at the cost of the homeowners and they are still the ones liable and responsible for everything.
2:40 pm
where is the fairness in that? it's crazy and doesn't make sense. also concerning basically what amounts to rent-control has been struck down and aside from that, if a unit does get omi'd or whatever, and insist that it gets re-rented at the old rent, the costs have gone up and you don't reimburse the person for that. who is going to rent at a 1987 rent? it's just going to take another unit off the market. i think these rules are just adding to the hostility and will just exacerbate the housing problem. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is robert barhamm i'm here as a volunteer from the mission collaborative. i would really like to thank ms. jane kim for this
2:41 pm
legislation, because she has proved to be still for the people that elected her to her position. and that i still respect her scruples and everything. myself, i have seen tenants get kicked out of buildings for having a roommate, because they violated the agreement in their lease as far as having overnights. these are people that have been together, 8, 9 and 10 years and i have even seen people threatened to get evicted because they share custody of a child. where they stay with the father part of the school year and with their mother the other part of the school year. and that is in violation of a rent agreement. so this legislation will give a family a chance to be a family again, to give a child a chance to
2:42 pm
live with both parents and it will also give a person a chance to have a place to where their companion can come to stay, other than going to jay, jail, where you can have a companion? in your cell with you. i really wish this legislation to be passed, that the small person still matters in san francisco. i thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> my name is andrew with the san francisco tenants union. i want to say that we support the legislation 100% and thank you supervisor kim. also i wanted to take this time to remind everyone that the only reason the asian-american movement is the only reason that landlords -- that asian-specifically chinese -- i'm chinese, people could be
2:43 pm
landlords was because of the fight for the international hotel, which was a fight for tenant rights. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervisors. catherine chu. >> speak into the mic. >> thank you, asian law caucus. i support this legislation and ask that you do, too. this morning i was in superior court trying to preserve the tenancy with 20-year tenancy. the reason for the eviction was a minor nuisance. the reason we're going in on thursday is for language barrier, where my client didn't understand the notice. in both cases, if the tenants are force moved out, the rent will increase by more than triple. for example, the rent right now is $800. an empty unit in the same
2:44 pm
building is currently renting for $4,000. i believe this legislation will go to the core of why we're seeing this up tick in evictions at this time. this legislation helps the housing crisis i believe two-followed. fold. it increases the housing stock by allowing roommates to come on board and also helps protect the tenants. i believe in you prioritize diversity and culture in san francisco, you will support this legislation. i'm a native san franciscan. i went to school here and actually had a class at lowell from one of the educators who is giving public commentary today. i believe if you do want to help preserve the kind of culture that we have in
2:45 pm
districts like the mission, and in chinatown, that you will also support you this. thank you. >> go lowell. >> good afternoon supervisors and it's very fortunate to be surrounded by fellow students in public discourse. i have been teaching in san francisco since 1985 and i'm here to represent the united educaters. when people ask educators what is the no. 1 issue facing education in san francisco? what they often respond with is housing. too many of our school communities are threatened by the disruption of teachers and other school staff, let alone our student and their families being faced with eviction by harassment. this seems to us at the united educators of san francisco, who
2:46 pm
by the way, represent about 6800 teachers and school staff in the city, represents to us a modest step forward in balancing the legitimate property rights of landlords , but also honoring and respecting the rights of people to stay in their homes. i will be leaving this podium to join a clergy and community vigil at a family house out in the excelsior. too many of that is happening in san francisco. it's not a one-off problem. we are in an economic pressure cooker. there are good angel and bad angels, but when people have the opportunity to make thousands and thousands of dollars to evict tenants protected by rent-control and other laws, too many people are
2:47 pm
willing to take that step. our members of uesf, in too many situations wind up on the streets looking for homes and often leave san francisco to teach elsewhere. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm carrie gold and supervising attorney at the justice and diversity center at the bar association of san francisco. i guess i'm one of the people that the landlords complain about, because i get pro bono attorneys to represent low-income tenants and to fight their evictions. i have had this entire year almost all of the cases that i have had have been breach cases, minor breaches. you, in fact, decided to handle one of the case because the landlord was a notorious landlord attorney who evicted tenants just all for cause.
2:48 pm
this attorney, i took her deposition and i just think that sworn testimony is the best statement that can be made for why it is that we need this legislation. the question: so initially your view of the building having potential also included some type of analysis of the tenancis in that building? answer, yes. question, and what was that analysis ? answer, that all of these people could be terminated, all of their tenancies could be terminated for cause, because they were all in violation of their rental agreements. what if your view was that they could not be terminated for cause? would the building have had the same potential? answer, in my opinion, question, yes? answer, i would not have been interested in it. thank you. i urge you to support this legislation. >> thank you, next speaker.
2:49 pm
>> my name is scott weaver from the san francisco tenants union. we have heard this afternoon of how severe an imposition this legislation would be for landlords. even though it will save hundreds of affordable units in san francisco, but they haven't really bullpen been able to articulate the severe imposition. how is requiring that a breach of an agreement be substantial or a nuisance be substantial? a severe imposition on the landlord. or if the level of occupancy in a unit can reach the legally
2:50 pm
allowable level of occupancy, how is that an imposition and can you recover costs associated with that level of occupancy, how is that an imposition? or to require a 60-day notice, to remove an illegal unit, rather than a 3-day notice, how much of an imposition is that really? er or to have a pre-printed form that will inform the language in tenant in a language that they will understand, how is that an undue imposition on the landlords? i doubt that the let the records -- in is
2:51 pm
legislation that will save hundreds of units per year. so please pass this measure now without delay. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i am seiu -- we have heard endless stories and this -- as elected officials this is part of our responsibility to work and fix loopholes that legislation creates. this legislation really just addresses something that you guys are all fully aware of, that we have heard over and over and over again. i would urge you guys to support this as seiu tenderloin, we support this legislations as-is. we're fully aware of these stories. these are not secrets, but well-known issue and it's unconscionable to allow a few bad actors to continue to abuse your residents and culture and
2:52 pm
preservation of the city and the residents. i urge you all to support this. thank you for your time. have a good average. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is taylor. i am an attorney at the eviction defense collaborative. at our offices, we keep seeing more and more evictions based on no-fault or low-fault, where the clear moat motivation of the landlord is to get more rent. the fact that it keeps happening shows there are loopholes and this eviction protection 2.0 needs to be passed to protect san francisco's tenants. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker . >> hello. thank you supervisors. i am an attorney at the eviction collaborative as well. i represent tenants for many, many years and what we are seeing right now is stark. what we are seeing is cases
2:53 pm
being brought for tiny, tiny, little things that should not be the reason to evict somebody. that not why the san francisco rent ordinance exists. these days when i have friends and acquaintances and neighbors tell me their building was just sold, they are terrified. because they are seeing what is happening in their neighbors and they are terrified of getting a notice themselves. i said you need to watch your back. you may have done nothing wrong or caused a complaint to your landlord, but watch your back, because right now they are out to get you. i shouldn't have to say that to people and this city ought to protect people behaving themselves, but not rewarding let the landlords for picking on tenants. it shouldn't be rewarding greed or rewarding moving ppeople for raising the rented later. all this does is disincentivize
2:54 pm
-- thank you >> translator: her name is --
2:55 pm
she is 80 years old. she is telling her story that i have an apartment for two people, but they rented an additional person for profit. because the owner had to include extra water and electronics i had asked for additional utility fee and they agreed and want to move out. they had to ask me to compensate $1,000 for each person and san francisco law has been overprotecting tenants and also makes bullies. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is sharon shay and i'm a small property owner. i believe that tenants are being pitted against landlords, small property owners are being lumped together with large corporations and newer housing not under rent-control. i think we need to work together, rights can't be given
2:56 pm
to just one side. or i fear that you may lose a lot of small property owners in the city. thank you. >> my name is becky. i am a small property owner. i oppose this -- supervisor kim's ordinance. and as many small property owners already mentioned, this ordinance will create more problems to the rental market i was wondering that you as supervisors should consider both side and not only one side and to set the rental policy more favorable to both sides, not just one side. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.
2:57 pm
>> hi. my name is -- -- [speaker not understood] thank you. >> my name is quan chen. i oppose this legislation. this is a very unfair proposatch please do not pass this ordinance. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is -- i'm with the mission sro collaborative and dolores street community service. first of all, a shotout to everyone who is still here. including the three supervisors. also i want to thank first of all jane kim for supporting sponsoring this legislation. and i'm also here to ask all of you to vote yes on the eviction protections 2.0. eviction protections. ask yourself who are you here to protect? are you here to protect the
2:58 pm
profiteers who see evictions and displacement as a way to bolster their wallets? those who would seek to take advantage of market conditions, and view our crisis as a business opportunity? are you here for them? or are you here for -- are you here to protect the poor, the working-class and the middle-class? are you here to protect those who struggle to remain in their homes? those who have to fear an eviction for simply hanging clothes outside? walking their bike in the hallway? or paint a wall in their unit three years ago? all of these are true stories as to why people have been forced to be evicted. if you are indeed here with the people, with us, then not only vote this out of committee, but vote for it when it going to the full board of supervisors. what this does is stem the tide of it mendacity and stupidity, which is washing away home and communities every day.
2:59 pm
every single day. 24 hours cannot go by in this city without another story added to the san francisco book of displacement. in front of you is an opportunity to keep thousands of tenants from being added to those pages. it is an opportunity for to you step forward by passing this vital item. i also since lowell got a shout-out, i shout-out g-house, i'm wearing the t-short. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> i have spent 40 years in san francisco as a resident. along with my two roommates, we have all lived, worked and raised children here. our new landlord, offered us our entire household the sum of $5,000 to move out, but having
3:00 pm
been tenants in a rent-controlled building insomaa we predictably exercised our rights to choose to stay. subsequently, much fraudulent accusations by the landlord were made in a litany of cure or quit notices. four and four months, weekly posting of 24-hour notices to enter our premises for inspection, and even attempts to tow our car. then came the unlawful detainer, we fought it. and unsuccess settlement conference. and then the sudden dismissal of our case by the landlord. his strategy of manipulation was eviction through intimidation. it is not fair that the people who have invested their lives and families in this city are so vulnerable and expendable. thank you. >> next speaker, please.
3:01 pm
>> good evening. my name is lorain mcalister, second-generation san francisco native and granddaughter and daughter of landlords. i was taught the prompt rental payments and good behavior over a long period of time by tenants was a valuable assets. however, these qualitis are irrelevant in a real estate market in which tenants are mere pawns. in 2015 our landlord knowingly engaged in executing a tsunami of accusations all fraudulent, but there is no oversight of filing of spurious document so this kind of abuse remains. people like myselfs wind up with a full-time defending myself. having been born in the summer of love in san francisco, i find that the hallmark qualities of the city, integrity, culture of diversity, and acceptance are
3:02 pm
qualities now being tested by putting profits over people. the qualities are drying up like a reservoir, in a drought on humanity. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors, my name is jane lee. i'm a small property owner. we pay a lot of property tax. and please make the law fair for both sides. this law is not fair. no on this law. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> supervisor my name is annie chu, i'm a small property owner. [speaker not understood]
3:03 pm
no on this law, okay? thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon everyone. my name is -- i am a renter in san francisco. but i'm very surprised right here is the owner can -- -- we are concerned about supply and demand for the houses. why they don't make laws to make the houses less and less? why?
3:04 pm
i want to ask ms. jane, are you a renter in san francisco? if you know -- -- what is the supply and demand? why do you just let the houses less and less? thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is -- i'm a small property owner. we came to the u.s. as immigrants and my parents were middle-aged and we ate nothing, but hot dog and potatoes for a long time, because we wanted to make it in america. we finally saved enough to buy the property and my parents are now in their 80s. they had no ideas that the laws would get to this point. they
3:05 pm
cannot understand and they are afraid. they don't want to rent. they cannot afford with their health and financial aid they cannot afford. in this legislation, how do you define "a substantial violation ? ?" and the new base rent, if you are going to rent again in 20 years, it's going to be together. right now we need to address the problem from the root cause. the rent increase is currently limited to 60% of consumer price index. consumer price index is the minimum inflation at 60% of the minimum and that is totally ridiculous. nowhere you can find that. and that is the root cause, and people don't want to move. that is one of the causes. one of the effects. and then you have no housing,
3:06 pm
and again the rent goes up. so you need to address the root cause of the problem. thank you. i say no to this legislation. >> thank you so much:my >> my name is george. i have been a renter in san francisco for over 30 years. i have yet to have known an honest landlord. >> thank you. >> if this passes, i recommend that you pass this resolution, because it will help to protect transpeople of color, and the greater transpopulation, because they are frequently the ones who are greatly egregiously targeted for these unlawful evictions. i have sustained -- i have been able to survive these chronic attempts at eviction over 30 years that i have been here with the help of eviction
3:07 pm
collaboratives and other agency of that nature. so i'm all in favor for your passage of the bill. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is josephine and i thank supervisor kim for your compassion for the renters, but also please spare some for the landlords to strike a balance. in the landlords are not doing a good job, give them a cure as well. there are non-profits for the tenants, but none for the landlords. we all do this voluntarily, but not for much longer. to punish the no-fault/low-fault landlords -- mom and pop, good operators who love their tenants, just treat them like families will have to sell to speculators if they didn't survive. that will be really bad for the tenants in the building, we all
3:08 pm
know that. or we'll have to keep the unit for a family and further reduce the rental stock, making the renters and new immigrants hard to stay in the city. if our children need the place or when they are done, we have to charge the same rent years down the road as what the current rent is? it's really losing the point. it's hard to believe, but it's true the harder it is to get back a rental property, the less likely the property will be available for rent in the future. vacancy control doesn't work. what if your friend borrows your car and doesn't return it when you need it? you don't lend it to them every ever again.
3:09 pm
add roommates without helping with liability or insurance that new renters will have to be punished for what others have done. market rents go up crazy, it's hugy do to chronic unfair legislation. the real solution is to build more, so that everyone can -- >> thank you very much. i don't see anyone else in line, but i want to give one final call for public comment on item 9. please come up if you want to speak. all right, seeing no more public comment, public comment is closed at this time [ gavel ] thank you. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i want to ask a question to the city attorney. and this is on one of the issues that were brought up, some concerns that were raised about our piece on the ordinance regarding illegal units. so if a tenant is residing in an illegal unit,
3:10 pm
whether to their knowledge or not, and the unit cannot be legalized, can the tenant continue to reside in the unit eviction-proof per our legislation? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the illegal status of the unit not be a basis for the eviction. the property owner or landlord could evict the person on other allowable bases, like substantial rehab, if that is one of the possibilities in that case. >> okay. so in some cases where the unit cannot be legalized; for example, this ordinance would not prevent an eviction in those cases? >> not necessarily. if there is another basis for eviction. >> thank you.
3:11 pm
and i know a concern was raised as well regarding short-term rentals being an issue in the eviction protection 2.0 legislation. i do want to thank supervisor malia cohen for bringing this to our attention and we worked with her office to clarify language that additional occupants would be defined as non-transitory and the legislation provisions regarding tenant use of the unit for short-term rental purposes referenced. under the existing short-term rental, will be given a warning for their first violation. property owners will be able to evict tenants upon the second violation. so we're happy to add the language of non-transitory to the provision and reference that the spr legislation to ensure it's absolutely clear that adding a roommate being adding a
3:12 pm
long-term occupant and not a short-term rental. so i have provided copies to the committee, the amendment is on page 9. and we add a line 4 on lines 7 and 8 for the purposes of the subsection 39 additional october participates shall not include persons with an agreement for less than 30 days and adding the roommate doesn't mean that roommate can be a constantly shifting short-term rentee. i would like to make a motion to amend. >> second. this is for the amendment you just spoke of? i will second that amendment -- that motion, i mean. without objection, this amendment -- this motion passes. [ gavel ] >> thank you. i know most folks have left, but i want to thank everyone who came out.
3:13 pm
there was over two hours' of public testimony just demonstrating what an important issue this is. and you know, just the many different stories that even i had not heard already, but also the immense fear that exists amongst our tenants. i want to recognize our small property owners who came out as well. and i know that we have some folks who need to understand their rights, as well as how the system works? i'm also sympathetic to some of the stories that were brought up. we were very careful in drafting this ordinance to really narrowly tailor these issues, these amendments to ensure that they are protecting tenants that deserve to be protected. and ensure that landlords can evict tenants that are bad tenants. that are repeatedly promoting bad behavior in your units. and we also, i think there is a little bit of confusion around vacancy rent control, it's only in four specific case, abate, capital repair and condo
3:14 pm
conversion. if you are truly doing for those reasons vacancy rent-control should not be an issue because you are not re-renting that unit. so we do d that to protect property owners interests because we have a lot of great landlords in san francisco. what we are seeing particularly with larger landlords and property owners what are using these frivolous breach of leases to evict tenants. that is what these protections are here for. so colleagues i would like to ask for your support to move this item forward with recommendation to the full board. >> before we go on, there is a couple of remarks that i want to share with everyone. well, good evening everyone and thank you for being here. i appreciatior dedication and your commitment. some of are you starting to
3:15 pm
become regulars in the chamber ad hoc staff members, if you will. i want to compliment the folks that are just involved in this entire process as we deal with the affordability crisis, as well as housing in san francisco. many people have developed a subject-matter expertise that is to be recognized and commended. supervisor kim, thank you for bringing us this wonderful gift of how many hours? two hours' of public comment? but important dialogue to have nonetheless. and i also to the committee members that helped to draft this legislation, thank you for bringing this forward for our consideration. i know it took a long time to get us to where we are today. there are several components of this legislation that i agree with, such as the need to provide notices to tenants in their dominant language.
3:16 pm
i think it's absolutely critical. so when they are receiving information they can understand all of it. but there are also a few pieces of the legislation that i think just need to be clarified. and we addressed one of them today in the amendment, in the legislation on section 4, page 9 relating to the illegal residential occupancy. so while i understand that the issues that many of the tenants are facing when a property owner knowingly and illegally subdivides a property into multiple units. and then use that illegal status either intimidate a tenant or even evict them to bring their property into compliance is actually a very real story that i hear very often. but it's not only -- but it's not the only challenge that we're facing when it comes to illegal units.
3:17 pm
i will share a little bit of the stories happening in the bay view community. the code enforcement team i chair with other city agencis have inspected properties particularly in the bayview community where there is one bad actor in particular, that subdivides the homes, the single-family homes in a way that makes it completely uninhabitable. and we have seen many single-family homes that have been subdivided into sometimes as many as eight different units with horrific conditions. such as exposed wiring, leaving sewage overflowing garage due to insufficient trash service, as well as illegally installed stoves and heaters. i think it's important that we recognize that will are instances where tenants should not remain in illegal units. also i think there is an
3:18 pm
important distinction that can be made between "illegal units" that can be legalized and those that cannot because of life and safety requirements. so i'm not sure really what the right language is at this point to address this issue? this is something that is important to me that i weally really like to address and wanted to extend a commitment to working with the sponsor on this legislation and the committee to develop a way to address this concern. so what i would like to do is suggest that we continue this item to continue to work on addressing some of the remaining issues. even if we pass this ordinance you out of committee today, it wouldn't be heard at the full board until after our august recess. and i think that taking some time to work on this issue
3:19 pm
would personally benefit district 10 residents, but i think it would benefit the entire city overall. i don't know if anyone has other thoughts on this. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madame chair. thank you to everyone on both sides who came out today. i also want to thank supervisor kim for stressing that the so-called vacancy control portion of this is limited to just a few types of evictions. when this was first introduced i must have misunderstood because i thought there was a broader vacancy control effort around so-called low-fault evictions, but that is not the case. so it is a much more limited set of evictions that would be impacted by that. but to me, the heart of this legislation isn't that. it's about the issues around
3:20 pm
breaches of the lease, and also subcategory of that around subtenancies or subletting. that to me are the questions that i have. and unfortunately when we have these debates about landlord-tenant relations we tend to hear broad statements that all landlords or overwhelming majority of landlords are terrible and dishonest and so forth. and that tenants are generally nar do wells and we know that the overwhelming majority of tenants are just living their lives and are not trying to violate their lease and are just paying their rent and just want to make lives for themselves. we know that there are
3:21 pm
certainly some landlords, who are just horrible, and i think one was mentioned here today, who we have the dishonor of having largely in my district, a woman by the name of ana cohagy, who is a sociopath and i don't say that elementary. light lightly. i don't usually make bombastic statements in the board of supervisors, but this is a woman, and there is no other way to describe her and i have worked with alison and other tenants where it's hard to envision living your daily life knowing that you have someone whose only goal is to get you out, doing things like dry walling up the laundry room, or other horrendous things to the tenants and i was thrilled when
3:22 pm
the city attorney's office have filed the lawsuit and we also know that not every violation is a fraudulent violation and know that there are tenants who cause problems not just for the landlord, but other tenants. and so i just want to be careful that we're not broad-brushing everything. so i will support the continuance today. and i just want to outline what my questions are: the sections about violations of the lease. one indicates that the violation has to be "substantial," which i understand is effectively already the law. and if it's not, then i think
3:23 pm
it should be. although we want to be clear what that means. i don't think we want people to be evicted for really minor violations, leaving their shoes in the hallways or leaving their bikes somewhere. the laundry hanging out of someone's home. while understanding while more significant violations when people are doing things that are impacting their neighbors or other tenants or the property; that is a different situation. there is also language and i have been asking everyone who will listen about this and i have not gotten a good answer. on page 9, line 15, i think is the area where it says, "when the landlord is endeavoring to require possession qualifying the tenant is committed or permit a nuisance or damage." if you read that literally, it means that if someone is doing
3:24 pm
damage to the property or tormenting their neighbors, but the notice is not served for another few days or a week, at the time that notice is served they may not be committing the nuisance. so i am in agreement that we shouldn't allow for a nuisance violation for something that is steal, stale, saying a year-ago you played your music loud, for a week, but now a it's more indicative of intent and you are trying to get tenant out, but that language has to be significantly tighten ed because i think right now, it is -- if you read it literally, it's problematic. in terms of subtenancies, i
3:25 pm
think the current law provides that you can move a family member in. you can swap in a subtenant or roommate for a roommate. and i'm open to discussions about how to address in a targeted way some of the problems we're seeing around roommates and subtenancies. because i agree there are some abuses going on and heard about some of those today with very legitimate roommate or subtenancy a[tkpwrao-ept/]s agreements and they are being evicted. this effectively eliminates or overrides any provision in the lease that limit the number of tenants in a unit other than what the housing code provides, which is the maximum that is considered, i think, appropriate in terms of health and safety. so the landlord
3:26 pm
including an existing leases would have no power whatsoever in an agreement that people agree to that say this is the maximum number of people that can live in the unit. again, i'm open to taking a look at a more targeted approach to how we deal with roommates and subtenancies. i'm open to addressing what we're seeing around minor breachs and trying to make sure that premise not being evicted for minor breaches. for right now, i think this language is too broad in these two areas. i will also say, and this is just some of the sadness of human existence, for people who are sociopathic or bound and determined to harass people and violate the law, they are going to do it no matter what the law says. ana ko hagy is violating the laws in a million different ways and the evictions that she is filing are fraudulent under
3:27 pm
the current law existing today. so we could amend the law a thousand time and people like that will continue to harass their tenants. so those are just some of the thoughts that i have. i will support the continuance today and i look forward to the conversation over the next -- over the august recess into september. >> all right. supervisor wiener, thank you very much. just a point of order, to the city attorney, correct me if i'm wrong, but a motion to continue is that a motion we would have to take first prior to the two motions on the take table; right? ? made clerk. >> supervisor kim. >> you have a motion to amend. thats has notice been acted on yet? >> it has been. >> that is the only motion on the table to continue? >> no, i made a motion to move this forward with recommendations and supervisor cohen made a motion to continue the item.
3:28 pm
>> the motion to continue takes precedence. >> yes. my understanding is that precedence of the motion is to take the motion to continue first and then to recommend to the board. >> thank you very much for that clarification. all right everyone. so there is a motion -- i made a motion to continue. is there a second? supervisor wiener? >> yes. >> can we take this unanimously or roll call. >> roll call. >> roll call vote, please >> this is to continue to-- >> that is item no. 9. >> to what date? >> after recess, first board meeting after recess is september 8th. i believe we meet on september 7th. >> why don't we do the second week of september. >> september 14th. >> yes, please. >> the 7th day is labor day, i believe. >> move it to the 14th of
3:29 pm
september. >> on the motion to continue to september 14th, supervisor kim? >> >> no. >> kim, no. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> wiener aye. >> and chair cohen? >> aye. >> aye. two ayes, one no. >> thank you very much, this motion passes [tkpwhra*-efplt/] [ gavel ] >> i would like to call items 7 and 8 together. >> you thank you. >> item no. 7 is a resolution receiving and approving the first bi-annual housing balances report for fiscal year 2014-2015 and item no. 8 is a hearing to present findings from the inaugural housing report. >> thank you. thank you for calling these together. supervisor kim is the author of both of these items. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i am going to make a motion to continue items 7 and 8 to the call of the chair. i think given the time, and
3:30 pm
given the length of the report, it bo would make sense to continue and another report that the planning department will be coming out with in september anyway, that is an update on the one that was released in july. so this allow the planning department the opportunity to actually merge the two reports together, and actually add a number of data points that the community has asked for since the july report has come ut. so i will make the motion to continue to the call of the chair. >> thank you very much, we'll schedule that as soon as possible. without -- so there has been a motion made. without objections -- that is the word i'm looking for without objection this motion passes [ gavel ] . thank you very much. >> public comment? >> that is right. let's make a motion to rescind the vote. >> second. >> thank


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on